[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ADDRESSING THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BROUGHT TO THE
UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-33
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-156 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (800) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-214 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
LAMAR SMITH, Texas Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio JUDY CHU, California
TED POE, Texas TED DEUTCH, Florida
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
MARK AMODEI, Nevada SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho JOE GARCIA, Florida
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
JASON T. SMITH, Missouri
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman
TED POE, Texas, Vice-Chairman
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE KING, Iowa SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
JIM JORDAN, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
MARK AMODEI, Nevada JOE GARCIA, Florida
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JULY 23, 2013
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security................................ 1
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security................................ 3
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 5
The Honorable Joe Garcia, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and
Border Security................................................ 6
The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and
Border Security................................................ 7
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security................................ 8
The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and
Border Security................................................ 9
The Honorable Raul Labrador, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and
Border Security................................................ 10
WITNESSES
The Honorable Mike Coffman, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado
Oral Testimony................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
The Honorable Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
The Honorable Cory Gardner, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado
Oral Testimony................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
The Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois
Oral Testimony................................................. 22
Prepared Statement............................................. 28
Barrett Duke, Ph.D., Vice President for Public Policy and
Research, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the
Southern Baptist Convention
Oral Testimony................................................. 33
Prepared Statement............................................. 34
Margie McHugh, Co-Director, National Center on Immigration
Integration Policy, Migration Policy Institute
Oral Testimony................................................. 36
Prepared Statement............................................. 39
Pamela Rivera, Washington, DC
Oral Testimony................................................. 47
Prepared Statement............................................. 48
Rosa Velazquez, Arkansas Coalition for DREAM
Oral Testimony................................................. 49
Prepared Statement............................................. 51
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois.......... 24
Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security................ 70
ADDRESSING THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BROUGHT TO THE
UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2013
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey
Gowdy (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, Poe, Smith,
King, Jordan, Amodei, Labrador, Holding, Lofgren, Conyers,
Jackson Lee, Gutierrez, and Garcia.
Staff Present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel; Allison
Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Graham Owens,
Clerk; (Minority) Tom Jawetz, Counsel; and Maggie Littlewood,
Clerk.
Mr. Gowdy. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on Immigration
and Border Security will come to order. Without objection, the
Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any
time. This is a hearing entitled ``Addressing the Immigration
Status of Illegal Immigrants Brought to the United States as
Children.'' We welcome all of our witnesses today. Both panels.
And we will get to our witnesses momentarily.
When Chairman Goodlatte had the first immigration hearing
months ago, I said we were looking for a remedy that would last
a lifetime. A real remedy, not a political or electoral remedy,
but a real remedy that is best for our country. And I said I
thought we could find a synthesis or a harmony, if you will,
between the compassion that defines us as a people and the
respect for the rule of law that defines us as a republic.
The House Judiciary Committee has since held nearly a dozen
hearings on different aspects of our immigration system and
passed four bills, including legislation to strengthen interior
enforcement and ensure the laws we pass are actually enforced.
We know border security and interior enforcement are the only
guarantee that we will not repeat the mistakes of the past.
The issue of how to treat children brought to this country
is not new. Congress has considered it since at least 2001, but
it is a new issue for this Congress and several Members of this
Subcommittee. We all view children as a special protected
class. We have all witnessed acts of heroism where total
strangers risk and sacrifice their lives for other people's
children. We admire teachers and other professionals who
dedicate their lives to teaching and helping other people's
children. Children and the issues that impact their lives unite
us like nothing else. And because children are a special class,
the law treats children differently in almost every regard.
When children wander into neighborhood yards, we don't call
that trespassing. When children cry and yell and scream at
restaurants or on airplanes, we don't call that a violation of
the noise ordinance. When children eat a grape at the grocery
store or eat piece a candy waiting in line before Mom or Dad
pays for it, we don't call that petty larceny. Children can't
sign contracts, they can't vote, they can't purchase certain
items, they can't even work in some instances because the law
treats children differently. Even when children do get in
trouble, legally, the system is completely separate. Even the
purpose of the system is different. The purpose of the adult
justice system is to punish; the purpose of the juvenile
justice system is to rehabilitate and to restore.
The law treats children differently for a variety of
reasons, including the fact that children cannot form the
intent necessary to violate the law. And intent is a necessary
element of every criminal offense. Simply put, children who
were brought here hadn't committed a crime, misdemeanor or
otherwise. The adults may have, but the children have not. And
that is not an expression of compassion, that is the execution
and the application of the law.
There are an estimated 1.35 million undocumented children
under the age of 18 and an estimated 1.6 million between ages
of 18 to 24 in this country. In recent months, I have heard
from many organizations and individuals regarding legislation
aimed at granting legal status for this subset of undocumented
immigrants children from South Carolina, children from as far
away from South Carolina as California. When my good friend
Jeff Denham was gracious enough to let me visit him in his
district, Jeff, I remember a young lady at your town hall
coming up to us afterward. And for virtually all her life this
young lady grew up thinking that she was an American citizen.
She never knew any differently. She led a virtuous life with
good grades, hard work, community involvement, active in her
church, wonderful, loving family. Exactly the kind of person
that you and I would want to be a fellow citizen. She was
polite. She was persuasive. She just had one question for us:
what country am I supposed to go back to? This is the only
country I have ever known.
So while there is an obvious openness with respect to
children who have done nothing wrong, those same equities in my
judgment, do not apply in the same regard to the remainder of
the 11 million undocumented immigrants. They may or may not
have other equities to argue. Let me say this as plainly as I
can, attempts to group the entire 11 million into one
homogeneous group in an effort to secure a political remedy
will only wind up hurting the most vulnerable. And to earn the
trust, respect of our fellow citizens, we must ensure there are
sufficient antifraud measures and sufficient screening
mechanisms so those who seek the benefit unjustly and without a
factual basis are identified.
In conclusion, let me say this: we are a Nation of laws
because law provides order and structure and predictability and
peace and equality and justice. Compassion is good. But it can
ebb and flow with the vicissitudes of life and the perspective
of the individual.
The law remains sturdy and strong as the foundation upon
which we live. I will support and defend the Constitution and
laws of the United States of America against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same. I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when
required by the law. I will perform noncombatant service in the
Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law. I
will perform work of national importance under civilian
direction when required by the law. That is not an oath for
Congress; that is the oath of citizenship. That is the pledge
and the promise each makes, hand on heart, to their soon to be
fellow citizens. Five distinct references to the law in just a
single paragraph of the oath. If we expect people to support,
defend, and live by the law after they become citizens, what
possible explanation can exist for not applying the law during
the process of becoming a citizen.
So finally the equities are on the side of the children in
my judgment. Equities to be debated. The law is also on the
side of these children. And the law stands above equity and
opinion. America is different. We are compassionate and free
because most of all we are a Nation of laws. And I presume that
is one reason people so desperately want to come here in the
first place.
And with that, I would recognize the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's hearing
examines a critically important issue in our broken immigration
system: the treatment of undocumented young people who were
brought to the U.S. as children. These are kids who have grown
up in this country, have attended American high schools, and
who often know no other country as home.
This Subcommittee last held a hearing about these DREAMers
in 2007 when three young women testified about their lives. One
of the witnesses, Tam Tran, grew up in California, graduated
from Santiago High School in Garden Grove, California and from
UCLA with a Bachelor's Degree in American Literature and
Culture with honors. Tam was in the Ph.D. program in American
Civilization at Brown University and was continuing to serve as
a leading voice in support of the DREAM Act when she and a
close friend, another DREAMer, died in a car crash on May 15,
2010.
I wanted to recognize Tam as we begin this hearing because
I am mindful of what Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to as the
``fierce urgency of now.'' Right now, we have an historic
opportunity to fix our broken immigration system, and it would
be a national shame if we were unable to do that. One part of
that fix, an important and compelling part of that fix, is to
ensure that DREAMers have an opportunity to become just as
American on paper as they already are in their hearts. I
believe that there is a strong, bipartisan support for that
principle and I am encouraged by some of what I have heard on
this issue from Republican Members, including those in
leadership, over the past few months.
In some ways, this is not new. The DREAM Act was first
introduced as bipartisan legislation in 2001 and has had
bipartisan support ever since. But the breadth of support in
Congress is promising and I am extremely pleased that this
breadth of support will be reflected by the witnesses who will
be testifying today.
But as encouraged as I am by the focus of our hearing
today, I must also say that I have concerns about some of what
I have read in the press leading up to this hearing. I
understand that Majority Leader Cantor and Chairman Goodlatte
are working on a legislative proposal that is rumored to be
called the KIDS Act. Their desire to become champions for this
issue is a positive development and is in many ways a testament
to the hard work that DREAMers themselves have done to build a
coalition by telling their stories and advocating for change.
But like the immigration bills that this Committee marked up in
June, we have not yet seen the language of the KIDS Act, and we
have not been asked to contribute to the effort. While I am
looking forward to reviewing the KIDS Act when its authors are
prepared to share it, I know that this is a sharp departure
from the history of DREAM Act legislation that was always
drafted and introduced with bipartisan support.
I am even more concerned about reports that some Republican
Members may be working on legislation that would allow
undocumented immigrants other than the DREAMers to obtain some
temporary lawful status but without a specific path to legal,
permanent residency.
I want to be clear: I recognize that this represents
significant progress, and I welcome that. I believe it shows a
growing appreciation that we cannot fix our broken immigration
system without addressing the 11 million undocumented
immigrants who are part of our businesses, our communities, and
our families. But I believe it would be a grave mistake to
allow millions of people to come out of the shadows and obtain
lawful immigration status, only to leave them in a second-class
status for the rest of their lives.
As I said at the Committee's very first hearing in this
Congress, partial legalization is a dangerous path. We need
only to look at France and Germany to see how unwise it is to
create a permanent underclass. What makes America special is
that people come here, they assimilate, they become fully
American with all of the rights and responsibilities that
citizenship bestows.
The American people agree. In a recent Gallup poll,
Americans were asked the following question: ``would you favor
or oppose each of the following as part of legislation to
address the issue of illegal immigration?'' They were then
provided various components of top-to-bottom reform of our
immigration laws, mandatory e-verify, tightened border
security, increased visas for skilled workers, and, ``allowing
illegal immigrants to become citizens.'' In the context of a
broader fix to our broken immigration system, 88 percent said
they favored a path to earned citizenship for the undocumented.
Support was overwhelmingly strong across all ideological and
ethnic groups. Among conservative, non-Hispanic, White
respondents, 83 percent favored a path to citizenship and only
17 percent opposed.
We have an opportunity now to do something that will help
strengthen America's economy. An opportunity to keep families
together. And for everyone who believes in the rule of law, and
I think all of us on the Judiciary Committee are in that camp,
we have an opportunity to design an immigration system that
promotes law-abiding behavior instead of our current one that
actually depends upon law breaking.
This opportunity does not come often. I feel as though my
entire time in Congress, 18-plus years, has been spent looking
for an opening to fix our broken immigration system once and
for all. This is that time. The Senate passed a bipartisan
immigration reform bill, and I am doing everything I can to
make sure the House is able to do the same. If we work
together, I think we can make that happen, and I think our
country will be better as a result. We know that our history as
a country, America, was formed by immigrants, and we will not
serve our country well unless we ensure that our future also
welcomes the immigrant that will help build a stronger America.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you. Thank the gentlelady from California.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia,
the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. Thank you for
holding this hearing. Thank you for your compelling opening
statement.
You know, when most Americans think about illegal
immigration, they picture adults crossing the desert on the
southwest U.S. border. But not every illegal immigrant in the
United States can be placed into the same category. Some did,
in fact, come here by paying a coyote to smuggle them across
the border. Some came here legally on a visa and didn't leave
when their allotted time expired so they could work here
illegally.
However, there is another class of unlawfully present
aliens, a class of individuals who deserve to be considered
from a different perspective. I am talking about aliens brought
here as children by their parents. They had no input into their
parents' decision to bring the family to the U.S. illegally.
And many of them know no other home than the United States,
having grown up as Americans since they were toddlers, in some
instances. They surely don't share the culpability of their
parents.
I have spoken about the fact that as part of the step-by-
step approach the House is taking to address immigration
reform, we should look at whether we as a Nation should allow
this group of young people to stay in the U.S. legally. And
while this is an important piece of immigration reform, it too
must be accomplished effectively and responsibly to ensure that
several years from now Congress is not once again being asked
to pass another piece of legislation dealing with the
immigration status of a new group of young people brought here
by their parents.
To that end, I do not believe that parents who made the
decision to illegally enter the U.S. while forcing their
children to join them should be afforded the same treatment as
their kids. Because, let's be clear, parents bringing their
young children to the U.S. illegally is not something we want
to encourage, not only because it would lead to continued
illegal immigration, but also because illegally crossing the
border is dangerous.
We have all seen the pictures or even video of children who
are dehydrated and lethargic from an arduous trek across the
Mexican and Arizona desert with their parents or with smugglers
paid by their parents. These border crossings could include
everything from handing a child over to a coyote in hopes of
getting the child to the U.S., to placing a child in the back
of a semi-truck in hopes that Customs and Border Protection
officers at the U.S. Port of entry wouldn't detect a human
presence in the trailer, to bringing a child down into a tunnel
built between Mexico and the United States, knowing that at any
moment it could collapse. These are all kinds of things that
immigration reform must ensure come to an end. Enforcement at
the border and in the interior of the U.S. is crucial to ending
these kinds of situations. And this Committee has passed
legislation to strengthen the enforcement of our immigration
laws.
However, successful immigration reform must also look at
how to address the significant population of illegal immigrants
who are already here and who were brought here as young
children by their parents through no fault of their own. And it
needs to acknowledge that just because there is a group of
children does not mean they should all be treated the same. For
instance, if they have joined gangs or been involved in
criminal activities, such as by entering the country as a drug
mule crossing the border, or if they have otherwise shown that
they do not intend to be productive members of American
society, they should not be treated the same for purposes of
legal status as young children brought here by their parents.
So I am pleased that the Chairman is taking the time to
look at this issue today, and I look forward to hearing the
testimony of all of our witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank Chairman Goodlatte.
I know we have two panels, including four colleagues who
have other Committee assignments. There had been other requests
for opening statements. So we will get to you as quickly as we
can. I will recognize Mr. Garcia, gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to thank the
Chairman. I know that he and many on the other side are trying
to find a solution for this problem, a right solution, a just
solution, an American solution. That said, when Members of this
Committee, when Members of this House use inflammatory
language, use offensive language, it does not help the process.
In my district, I have multiple schools who on a regular basis
produce valedictorians. And they are undocumented. However,
when Members of this House use language such as, ``For everyone
that is a valedictorian there are another hundred out there who
weigh 130 pounds and have calves the size of cantaloupes
because they've been hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the
desert,'' it is offensive. And is beneath the dignity of this
body and this country. I know that my colleagues are trying
hard. In particular, I know that the Ranking Member on our side
has been working very hard to find a solution. But this is an
American problem, and we need to work together. We need to stop
pointing fingers and find a pathway forward.
I look forward to the good will in particular of all this
House to try to find a way to solve this very American problem.
Thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Florida.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
recognizing me for an opening statement. And my purpose in
requesting time here is to help set the tone a little bit
differently, in that when I see that we have eight witnesses
all lined up on one side of the agenda and four people lined up
to speak as opening statements and then would hear from the
eight witnesses and at that point maybe you would hear from
someone who happens to disagree with this concept that is
before us today called the KIDS Act. And I don't know how I am
supposed to know that officially. I did pick that up in the
news. I know it was referred to by the gentlelady from
California as the KIDS Act.
But we don't have a bill before us, ladies and gentlemen.
And so we can't look at the language of a bill and take a
position on that language. We are here today examining a
concept, a philosophy, a potential bill that is not yet before
us. This is the opposite order that we usually conduct business
with in this Congress. So I would suggest that in the future we
turn that back around, actually have a bill before us that we
can have witnesses testify to.
All of us have sympathy for children who are brought here
without knowledge that they were breaking the law. I do not
think that the definition of a child cannot form intent doesn't
stick when I look at the way we punish people for committing
other crimes. And so I disagree with that definition to some
degree with the Chairman of the Subcommittee on this particular
subject. But whose fault is it? It is not the children's fault
if they are children. It is not the children's fault if they
are unaware. It is not the children's fault if their parents
brought them into the United States. They are all subject to
the application of the law. Then whose fault is it? Is it the
parents' fault? I think so. And is any one of these witness
panel, these four or the next four, are they going to advocate
that we punish the parents for bringing their children into a
situation where they all find themselves in contradiction of
the law, in violation of the law? Is this being set up as a
broader picture of a backdoor amnesty so that all people that
are unlawfully in the United States, with those exceptions that
the Senate has identified as those that have committed a felony
and those who have committed those three mysterious
misdemeanors, they would be exempt. But, otherwise, everybody
in America is targeted to get legalized by the Senate Gang of
Eight that may be implicitly in an action that might come from
this bill. And I am very concerned about that. Because if you
legalize people that are here in this country unlawfully and
you waive the application--even if there were children and you
waive the application of the law on their parents, especially
if they are the ones that brought them to commit this act, then
who do you enforce the law against if everybody that hasn't
committed the felony is now legalized or their family member is
to be reunified and everybody that comes after this point, when
do you start to enforce the law if we can't enforce it today?
On the next one that arrives with a 1-week-old baby? Maybe. I
don't think so. I think what is on course here, advocated by
our witnesses ahead of us, I expect, and those that will follow
them, is, we will just do this little sliver here because this
one tugs at our heart. It tugs at my heart, too.
But I listen to the Subcommittee Chairman's statement when
he says he wants a remedy that will last a lifetime. I think we
have a higher responsibility than that. I think we have to
preserve the rule of law so that this country can last for
many, many generations into the future. Not our lifetime, but
the lifetime of the United States of America. And if you exempt
the rule of law with regard to immigration, even a part of it,
then what you have done is you have suspended the law in a
category. And if you can suspend the law and exempt it for
people who are either here illegally, for people that will come
here illegally and those who, by the way, according to the
Senate language, have been deported in the past and you invite
them to come back to the United States again, then what you
have done is you have sacrificed the rule of law on the altar
of political expediency. And the result will be American
immigration law will not be set by Americans again, it will be
set by the people that can circumvent the border security that
we are promised. But I will promise you, it will not come. It
did not come in 1986. This Administration is not serious about
enforcing the law. They will make whatever promises they need
to do in order to do the legalization they want to do. And if
the end of this thing is citizenship because they are willing
to sacrifice the rule of law for political power and we have
100 million Americans today of working age that are not in the
workforce, and we are talking about giving a reward for
breaking the law, we must take this back to the essential
fundamental principle.
I appreciate the Chairman yielding me some time, and I am
looking forward to the testimony of the witnesses. I am not
hopeful that I am going to hear that statement in any of the
testimony that comes before this Committee. I thank the
Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gowdy. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, this is a good start. We
have done this, however, for those of us who are senior Members
on this Committee, for more than a decade. And I thank you and
Congresswoman Lofgren for the testimony that will be rendered
today. And I believe that it is worthy to hear Members of
Congress and to find that common ground. It is also worthy to
hear the opposition. But it is also well to note that we as
legislators are best when we act on behalf of the American
people and we strike a compromise. The difficulty is, as I have
listened to my good friend, that we will go nowhere if we
cannot find a common ground or we do not have those who can see
compromise on the horizon. But the one thing that we cannot
compromise on, and I said this earlier in remarks, around the
DREAMers and I thank them, for they have put in a spark plug
that has drawn now the interest of our friends on the other
side of the aisle, is that we are commemorating and celebrating
Ramadan, but we also have principles in the Christian faith.
One of them is in the book of Ruth, where this young woman
entreats her mother-in-law not to leave her. She had come close
to her mother-in-law, and she asked that her mother-in-law not
go somewhere else and leave her. But we want to tell the DREAM
Act children that they can stay, but we don't know about your
parents or your sisters and brothers. What values are those?
What value is it if we tell our DREAM Act children that they
can stay but we tell them not to honor their mother and their
father. We have a format. We have comprehensive immigration
reform. And we can listen to individual suggestions. I have
seen bills that may be advantageous, that may even be put into
the larger framework that so many Members have been working on
over the years. But we cannot move forward if we have motions
on the floor of the House, for example, voted enthusiastically
to unfund the funding that would process DREAM Act children.
How can you say that you are interested in moving forward when
we have struck a chord of dissension by taking the very dollars
away that would help move the process forward, even if we were
to take this one bill at a time.
I will say this as I wrap up. I have spent a number of
years, we will hold an immigration hearing that we invite all
of you to come to in Houston, Texas, on the 29th. We want
people to come from far and wide. Members of Congress are
coming in from around our State. And we are looking to
delineate Texas' interest and commitment, as one of the larger
States of the Union, in comprehensive immigration reform.
This morning, we heard that it is not only business
persons, but it is the evangelical or the faith community and
business. We are hoping to strike a chord. That is what we need
in this Congress. Members of Congress that believe in business,
you can vote for comprehensive immigration reform. Members of
Congress that believe in the faith community, evangelicals and
want to bring people together, you can vote for a comprehensive
approach. And certainly if you adhere to law enforcement, who
have cried out for comprehensive immigration reform, you can do
that. But most importantly, if you believe in humanity, if you
believe in the young people that maybe because we are in
Washington you don't see. I see them. They come into our office
with tears in their eyes. Yes, valedictorians, salutatorians.
Young men and women--I know there is a bill talking about those
who have served in the military. We have done some of that
before. Some young man who stopped me while I was shaking his
hand on the platform of graduation, he stopped me as we were
shaking hands, wishing him well. He said, I want to go into the
service. And he can't go now. He didn't stop me and said he
wanted to go to vacation or he wanted to get a big-time job. He
wanted to go and serve his Nation. But of course he had an
obstacle. If you see those kinds of children, then you know
that the only approach we can take is comprehensive immigration
reform. If you see the tears, if you view the vast humanity,
that is the approach we should take.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, that this Committee
will see a comprehensive initiative, and that we will be voting
much sooner than later for a better America. With that, yield
back.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank the gentlelady from Texas.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing, as well as the Chairman of the full Committee,
the numerous hearings we have had and the step-by-step approach
toward immigration reform legislation. I want to make my
comments center on the phrase breaking the law. ``Breaking the
law.''
It is estimated that over 1.3 million children were brought
here from foreign countries without their consent by their
parents who are under the age of 10. 1.3 million brought here
under the age of 10. Everywhere in our law that I am aware of
there must be some intent for the act to be committed, either
civil intent to form a contract, criminal intent to commit a
crime. In most States, 10 and under, a person cannot form the
intent to do anything, to commit a crime, to sign a contract,
because the law says they are a child. And as you have said,
Mr. Chairman, immigration law is the only place I know of where
intent is not required to be considered, quote, illegal.
I think it is time that we bring the law up to the standard
of all laws in the United States, that a child cannot form the
intent to commit an act that is illegal in the United States.
So, therefore, we should look at children brought here by their
parents, 10 and under, whatever age we use, 1.3 million, as not
being able to have illegal status because they cannot--they did
not consent to the act. They did not make that determination
mentally. And, therefore, they should be treated, I think, in a
special way, that they are children brought here with no intent
to have the status that they have, they were--that status was
given to them by their parents.
So breaking the law? I am not so sure that we can say that
they have broken the law because their status should not be
retroactive after they reach a certain age, but their age at
the time that they were brought here. 1.3 million brought here
under the age of 10, nowhere else in our law can a person
commit a violation of the law under the age of 10 except in
immigration.
So it seems to me that it is time that we deal with these
special children in a very special way and bring them into our
society and move forward with rectifying this error in our
immigration law and making sure that we, as the Chairman has
said, have compassion, that we follow the rule of law, and that
we move forward with recognizing these children.
I have met numerous individuals who were brought here as
children. Some of them serve in our military overseas,
Afghanistan, Iraq. So I think this hearing is very important,
hearing from fellow Members of Congress about this issue is a
unique, special issue in the entire discussion of immigration
legislation,dealing with those children that were brought here
not by their choice and not by their intent, but the choice and
intent of someone else.
And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Gowdy. I believe there was one more request from the
gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. Labrador. Mr. Chairman, there was no request. But I
will go ahead and make a short statement. I just----
Mr. Gowdy. I should have kept my mouth shut.
Mr. Labrador. Okay. But anything the Chairman asks me to
do, I will do.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
panel, members of the audience, I am grateful that you are
here. I am grateful that we are having this discussion. I think
it is important for us as Americans that we comply first with
the rule of law, that we, second, look at what the security of
our Nation is, that we, third, look at what we need to do to
make sure that the mistakes we have made in the past with
respect to enforcement of our law, that they can be corrected.
I think this is an important hearing. I think--I like the tone
that we have set so far. And I want to make sure that we
continue to have this tone and this conversation here about
what to do with the people that came here as young people.
Now, I do want to make something very clear that I have
said in public and private. There is no right to citizenship of
the United States. It is a privilege that is provided by the
law. And it is a privilege that is provided by our
Constitution. And it is something that we need to discuss here,
how to do it in the best way, so we can prevent in the future
having the same mistake--making the same mistakes that we made
in 1986 and making the same mistakes that we have made over the
last 30 or so years. And I want to thank you for being here. I
want to thank you for your efforts. And I will continue to do
something to make sure that we can find a way for us to
actually solve the problems that are facing us, which are grave
problems that I think affect the future of the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank the gentleman from Idaho.
We are privileged to have two wonderful panels, the first
of which are four of our distinguished colleagues, each of whom
has a very distinguished resume. I would invite the audience or
the viewers to look at their resumes in more detail. But in the
interest of time, because they have other Committees to go to--
and, Luis, we are anxious for you to come up and join the
Subcommittee, I am not going to read the biographies. I am
simply going to recognize Representative Coffman,
Representative Denham, Representative Gardner, Representative
Gutierrez, for your opening statements. And then we will--we
thank you, and we will let you go back to the Committees that I
know you all serve on.
With that, Representative Coffman.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MIKE COFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the first question
that we----
Mr. Gowdy. You may want to punch the button on the----
Mr. Coffman. It is on now.
So the first question that we ought to ask ourselves here
today is whether or not we believe that the young people who
were brought to this country illegally as children, who grew up
and who went to school here, who probably know of no other
country, ought to have the pathway to citizenship. And I
believe that the answer to that question is yes.
From my own background, I believe that the greatest
expression of American citizenship is serving this Nation in
our military. It is from the sacrifices of those who have worn
the uniform that we as Americans enjoy the freedoms that we
have today. I strongly believe that the undocumented young
people in our country ought to be able to serve in our military
as one of those pathways to citizenship.
I come from a military family. My late father served in
both the United States Navy and the Army and was a combat
veteran from both World War II and the Korean War. I am also a
combat veteran with service in both the United States Army and
Marine Corps and was in both the first Gulf War and the Iraq
War.
First of all, I think we need to remember that the role of
the United States military is to defend our Nation and that the
principle objective must always be the national security of our
country. We must never use our Armed Forces as an instrument of
social policy when that conflicts with our national security
interests. Many of us can remember being told, half jokingly,
by drill sergeants that in the military we are to defend
democracy and not to practice it.
So the first question should be, will it benefit our
military to have these undocumented immigrants be able to
enlist in the United States military, and I think that the
answer is clearly yes. Allowing these undocumented young people
to enlist in the military will contribute to the national
security of our country.
I left for my first overseas assignment in the United
States Army in Europe in 1972. I returned from my last
assignment with the United States Marine Corps in Iraq in 2006.
What I saw over the course of that time was first a military in
the early 1970's, in the aftermath of Vietnam, that suffered
from low morale, poor discipline, and a question mark behind
its combat readiness. Since both recruiting and retention were
difficult, standards were continually compromised in favor of
sustaining a large force numerically.
There is no comparison to my reflection of the military in
the early 1970's and the military of today. The United States
Armed Forces of today is much smaller in size, but it is an
elite and a more lethal force of highly qualified Americans who
want to continue to serve. However, when the civilian job
market improves, retaining this quality force will become more
challenging.
A study in 2009 completed by Mission Readiness, entitled
``Ready, Willing, and Able to Serve,'' found that 75 percent of
young adults between the ages 17 to 24 are not fit for military
service because they either don't have a high school diploma,
are overweight, have a criminal record, or a history of
substance abuse. I strongly believe that expanding the pool of
eligible recruits to select from could play a critical role in
helping to retain the elite status of our military even as the
civilian job market improves.
What my legislation, H.R. 435, the Military Enlistment
Opportunity Act, does is provide reforms to our recruiting
regulations that would allow certain undocumented residents of
the United States to apply for military service after they have
been first vetted by the Department of Homeland Security. The
vetting by the Department of Homeland Security would only mean
that the individual is eligible to apply to serve in the
military and it would be up to each respective branch of
service as to whether or not to accept these applicants.
Permanent residents, or green card holders, are allowed to
enlist in the military today, but because they are not U.S.
citizens, they are very restricted in terms of what
occupational fields they can do. Only U.S. citizens can hold a
security clearance and without a security clearance, an
increasing number of occupational fields in the military are
off limits. Opening up enlistment opportunities to undocumented
residents would only aggravate an existing problem by
relegating these new recruits to a shrinking number of
occupational fields given the fact that more and more of them
require security clearances.
My solution under H.R. 435 is to grant citizenship at the
beginning of their enlistment for both permanent residents and
for those who were previously undocumented but now who would be
allowed to enter the military. This would enable the military
to use all of their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen to
their best and highest potential because they would no longer
be restricted from entering the majority of career fields.
However, in doing so, I would make the citizenship revokable
should the service member receive a less than honorable
discharge within a 5-year period. Currently, enlistments are
for an 8-year period but can be a combination of active duty,
reserve, or inactive reserve time when the service members are
still available to be called up to return to active duty.
I strongly believe that allowing those young people we are
talking about today to serve in our military as a pathway to
citizenship is not just the right thing to do but will serve to
strengthen the national security of our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Representative Coffman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Mike Coffman,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado
Thank you Chairman Gowdy and the Immigration Subcommittee Members
for the opportunity speak today on this panel on the legalization of
the young undocumented population present in the United States.
Historically, there is no question that immigrants have contributed
greatly to the strength, prosperity, and vitality of our nation.
Americans understand that people are an asset to be valued because
we are a nation of, by and for the People--without which our American
experiment would cease to function.
Unfortunately, our current system is broken and has become overly
burdensome for individuals and their families, who want to come to the
U.S. in search of a better life.
The legal immigration process is so difficult that it encourages
breaking the law rather than wading through a complicated bureaucratic
visa system.
For these reasons, I support conservative immigration reform
because our current system simply does not work for the individuals who
share our beliefs and deeply desire to be here.
Although I understand the issue of immigration reform has become
divisive, I do believe we can come together on at least one single
issue.
We can and should provide a path to citizenship for the young
undocumented individuals who were brought here by their parents.
These young people have grown up here, attended school here, and
know of no other country besides the United States.
It should be easy for us to formally accept them into society as
long as they have stayed out of trouble and are independent, productive
residents.
Also, many of these young people wish to serve this country in
uniform.
My late father, a retired Army master sergeant, taught me that
there is no higher demonstration of American citizenship than serving
in the military.
As a Marine Corps combat veteran myself, I could not agree more and
I strongly urge that these individuals have the opportunity to enlist
and serve if they qualify.
Early this year, I introduced H.R. 435, the Military Enlistment
Opportunity Act, which would allow qualified Deferred Action Childhood
Arrivals to enlist in the military.
Most importantly, H.R. 435 provides a path to citizenship through
military service, giving recruits access to all areas of military
service including Officer Candidate School, Special Forces, military
police, and cyber security.
Citizenship is a prerequisite for a security clearance--without
which--these career fields are foreclosed.
This access to additional talent is also highly beneficial to our
armed services because creating a greater pool of recruits is crucial
for the military to confront an impending recruitment problem.
Recently, a study completed by Mission Readiness, titled ``Ready,
Willing and Unable to Serve,'' concluded that 75 percent of young
adults ages 17 to 24 are not fit for military service.
The vast majority of applicants are turned away because they don't
have a high school diploma, are overweight, have a criminal record or a
history of substance abuse.
My bill would allow the military to continue to choose from the
best by expanding their recruiting base. This is essential for our
national security.
Finally, unlike other proposals like the Senate bill, H.R. 435 is
in line with how the military enlistment process functions.
By certifying the individual before they attempt to enlist, we
relieve the military of performing the central functions of the
Department of Homeland Security.
Although the military does perform background checks and confirm
documents, their central function is to ensure the best and brightest
are joining their ranks rather than authenticating individual
documents.
H.R. 435 is a commonsense bill that helps young undocumented
individuals as well as the military.
I hope that this Committee and the House as a whole understand how
important immigration reform can be for our military and national
security, and
I look forward to working together on legislation that not only
helps the young people gain legalization but also aids the armed
services maintain their elite and unparalleled level of service to this
nation.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and I yield
back.
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Representative Denham, we want to make sure the
microphones are fully functioning, so we may need to stand down
just for 30, 45 seconds.
Mr. Denham. Chairman Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. It is definitely working now, Brother.
Mr. Denham. Chairman Gowdy. There we go.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEFF DENHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Denham. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, I just
want to first start by thanking both of you for not only the
appreciation that I share with both of you on spending time
with me going over specific pieces of this legislation, but
more importantly, my constituents. You guys have both dedicated
a great deal of time and it is much appreciated by me and the
folks in my district. I also want to thank the Members of this
Committee for dedicating so much time to actually fixing this
problem. I, like the Chairman, want to fix this once in my
lifetime. It is a huge priority. It is a personal priority of
mine. But it is also something that I believe will grow the
economy of California and contribute to the greatness of
America.
But on a personal note, I have witnessed the trials and the
joys of immigration through my own family. My father-in-law is
a naturalized citizen from Mexico, my wife and her siblings
first-generation Americans. I was very proud when my father-in-
law, a very proud man, asked me to help him study for his
citizenship test. It is a big deal. Not everybody wants to
become a citizen, but those that do are willing to work hard to
make this country great. Now, I know that we are here today to
talk about kids that have been brought here through no fault of
their own, a very important topic. And I look forward to
continuing to engage on a variety of other issues. But
specifically on this topic, one of the bills that is already in
print, that a number of you have already cosponsored, will be
part of the KIDS Act, would be the ENLIST Act. And during my 16
years of serving in the United States Air Force, I served along
with many foreign nationals who were able to earn citizenship
through putting their lives on the line for Americans in the
armed services. Our Nation has never made citizenship a
requirement for service in our Armed Forces. 50 percent of
enlistees in the 1840's were immigrants. 660,000 military
veterans became citizens through naturalization between 1862
and the most recent numbers of 2000. Individuals from Marshall
Islands, Micronesia, Palau, and America Samoa can gain
citizenship today through military service. The Lodge Act was
passed by Congress in the 1950's to allow the military to
recruit from Europe and other Nations overseas to fill critical
roles. Between 1952 and 1990, 34,620 Filipinos, many of whom I
served with, enlisted in the Navy were granted U.S.
citizenship.
I introduced the ENLIST Act, H.R. 2377, which authorizes
the enlistment in the Armed Forces of undocumented immigrants
who were brought into the United States as children and who are
otherwise qualified for enlistment. This bill will provide a
way for the undocumented immigrants to be lawfully admitted to
the U.S. for permanent residence by reason of their honorable
service and sacrifice in the U.S. military. Not the only way,
but certainly a way to show their dedication to this great
country that we have.
The ENLIST Act will only affect a certain population of
kids who have been in the United States since the age of 15 and
are prohibited from expressing their patriotism and allegiance
to the United States under current military code. These
recruits would provide the military departments with a talent
pool of young men and women, many of whom would have
strategically valuable language and cultural competencies.
I recently met with a constituent, Gloria Sanchez, Mr.
Chairman, I think you met her as well, who was recruited by the
Marines from Modesto High School. A day after completing her
paperwork and forms, Gloria was contacted by the recruiter and
asked for her Social Security number, which she obviously did
not have because she was brought here unlawfully into the
United States. Gloria would have been able to serve her country
had my ENLIST Act already been law.
In the midst of our immigration reform debate, one thing we
should all agree on is that we must require those who came here
illegally to give back before they can receive any additional
benefit. As someone who served, I remember the pride I felt
wearing the uniform and cannot think of any better way for
these young people to earn the right to fully share in the
rights and freedoms of America.
I would just like to point out one other thing. As we
traveled around this district, we traveled around the State,
and I have even spent on time in other districts around the
Nation. I have talked to not only a large number of immigrants,
but I have talked to a lot of kids. And I get a very
interesting look. We don't speak English--we don't speak
Spanish, we only speak English. Their entire life they have
gone to our schools with our kids.
It is an issue we have to address. This is a big challenge,
addressing the entire immigration system. But specifically on
this issue, we have to address this issue, we need to address
it now.
Let me just finish by saying last month I appreciated
Chairman Goodlatte and House Democratic Caucus Chairman
Becerra, we had a colloquy on the floor dealing with the ENLIST
Act. Both had said that they were willing to work together on
making sure that this issue becomes a reality. I appreciate
your willingness to do that. This is an important part of this
package. And I hope this entire Committee and the entire House
will consider the ENLIST Act as one of the ways, one of the
ways for undocumented individuals to legalize. Without
providing opportunities to earn a legal status our body will
not resolve our immigration status. There is no better way than
putting your life on the line for this country to become an
American citizen.
I thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Denham.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Denham follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jeff Denham,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Dear Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Members of the
Committee,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you in this
Hearing on the immigration status of those brought to the United States
as children. These are undocumented residents who only know America as
their home, and were brought into the United States not by their own
will, but that of their parents or guardians.
As a resident of central California, I have spent several decades
getting an education, running a business, raising children, farming,
attending worship services, volunteering for school events and kid's
sports events--all alongside neighbors who were immigrants from Central
America, South America, Southeast Asia, Portugal, and many other parts
of the world.
I have also witnessed the trials and joys of immigration through my
own family. My father-in-law is a naturalized citizen from Mexico, and
my wife and her siblings are first-generation Americans. Watching my
father-in-law and other family members go through the process of
becoming citizens and integrating their pride of their heritage
seamlessly with their American patriotism has helped shape my idea of
what patriotism means. I am grateful for the opportunities I have had
to experience the rich heritage of immigrants in one of the most
diverse regions of the world, and it is a heritage my wife and I have
taken great care to share with our two children and our nieces and
nephews.
Although I grew up in a very diverse environment, it was during my
16 years serving in the United States Air Force that I developed my
strongest appreciation for the contribution of immigrants to our
nation. I served alongside many foreign nationals who were able to earn
citizenship through putting their lives on the line for Americans in
the Armed Services.
Our nation has never made citizenship a requirement for service in
our armed forces. Since the founding of our nation, noncitizens have
been a part of our military, and Congress has seen fit to make military
service a way for patriotic individuals from other countries to show
allegiance to our flag and become United States citizens.
Almost half of U.S. Army enlistees in the 1840s were immigrants and
more than 660,000 military veterans became citizens through
naturalization between 1862 and 2000. These men and women have proven
that they are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their adopted
country. I believe that anyone who swears an oath to defend our nation
and serves out an enlistment term honorably should be entitled to the
privileges afforded to American citizens.
Currently, citizens of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau,
as well as American Samoa can gain citizenship through military
service. Many individuals here on student visas and employment-based
visas have special eligibility to join our armed forces and earn
citizenship through the Military Accessions Vital to the National
Interest (MAVNI) program. Additionally, many foreign nationals and
Legal Permanent Residents serve in our armed forces as a way to earn
citizenship. In the 1950s, Congress passed the now-expired Lodge Act,
which allowed the military to recruit from Europe and other nations
overseas. Between 1952 and 1990, 34,620 Filipinos enlisted in the Navy
and were granted U.S. citizenship. In all of these cases, national
security is enhanced, not threatened or undermined by foreign nationals
and noncitizens. Likewise, allowing undocumented immigrants to enlist
would not pose any additional national security risk because they would
be subject to the same screening mechanisms in place for the other
foreign nationals serving in our armed forces to earn the right to be
called Americans.
In order to allow undocumented Dreamers to serve our country, I
introduced the ENLIST ACT, H.R. 2377, which authorizes the enlistment
in the armed forces of undocumented immigrants who were brought into
the United States as children and who are otherwise qualified for
enlistment. This bill will provide a way for the undocumented
immigrants to be lawfully admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence
by reason of their honorable service and sacrifice in the U.S.
military.
The ENLIST Act will not give undocumented immigrants special
benefits, nor will it create an opportunity or incentive for
undocumented immigrants to rush the border now. The bill will not
change military naturalization law. The ENLIST Act will only affect a
certain population of people who have been in the United States and are
prohibited from expressing their patriotism and allegiance to the
United States under current military code. The bill gives an
opportunity for current undocumented immigrants who otherwise qualify
for enlistment to give back to the nation that has provided them with
so much, including public elementary and secondary education and, in
many cases, a college degree.
For the many thousands of young undocumented immigrants who
graduate from our public and private high schools each year, military
service would offer an avenue for them to serve the United States and
earn a legal status in the country they love. These recruits would
provide the military departments with a talent pool of young men and
women, many of whom would have strategically valuable language and
cultural competencies.
I recently met with Gloria Sanchez, a constituent of mine, who was
recruited by the Marines to serve our country for her leadership,
aptitude, skills, courage, and patriotism. The Marines and other
branches of the military visited her high school, Modesto High School,
and spent hours talking interested students through the recruitment
process. A day after completing her paperwork and forms, Gloria was
contacted by the recruiter and asked for her social security number,
which she did not have because she was brought unlawfully into the
United States. Gloria would have been able to serve her country had my
ENLIST Act already been law. It is a shame to see men and women who
have lived in the United States for most of their childhood denied the
ability to put their lives on the line for our country. Congress has an
interest in helping build up and care for our armed services, and that
includes providing opportunities for patriotic young people like Gloria
to enlist and serve alongside our forefathers and the greatest heroes
of American history.
This body is debating different approaches to fixing our broken
immigration system, but one thing we should all agree on is that the
approach must require those who came here illegally to give back before
they can receive any additional benefit. As someone who has served, I
remember the pride I felt to wear the uniform and cannot think of any
better way for these young people to earn the right to fully share in
the rights and freedoms of America.
I hope you will support the ENLIST Act's purpose of allowing
undocumented immigrants to enlist in the regular component of the Armed
Forces. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present this
testimony before you today.
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Gardner.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CORY GARDNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member
Conyers, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and other
Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today.
My full statement has been submitted for the record.
This hearing today is an important step toward addressing
immigration reform in a sensible and systematic manner.
Clearly, our current system is broken. Immigration is an
important issue for my district,like it is for everyone on this
panel. Ignoring immigration laws for nearly 2 decades has
helped result in approximately 11 million people in the United
States without documentation. In fact, 40 to 42 percent of
undocumented individuals in the Nation were once here legally,
but overstayed their visas. The 1986 bill has proven unworkable
and too easily avoidable. We must reform immigration laws and
we must do so in a step-by-step process with deliberation and
debate surrounding each piece of reform. And we must begin with
border security and interior enforcement. We cannot simply put
reform to the side because it is unworkable or the political
will is simply not present to make it work. We have a chance to
prove to the American people that the Federal Government can be
trusted to build a long-term and common sense system.
It has been said by many that the United States is a Nation
of immigrants, and I imagine if I was not blessed to be born in
this country I would have done everything I could to be in this
country. But we are also a Nation of laws. Our current
immigration laws have proven inadequate and are not being
enforced. If a law is not enforced or it is ignored, then we no
longer remain a Nation of laws and the law becomes worth little
more than the bill paper that it is written on.
Congress must move forward by building a new system of
immigration laws that will stand strong and secure but still
allow a workable system for people that want to be part of this
great Nation and a healthy economy to have the opportunity to
do so. I urge the House to be guided by law and fairness during
this process and fair as well to the those currently waiting in
the legal process to become citizens. Any immigration reform
must first begin with border security and interior enforcement
as a top priority, and I will not support reform that fails to
include strong security enforcement measures. Not only do these
measures need to exist, but there must be confirmation from a
credible outside entity that these measures have been satisfied
and implemented. No one should be able to simply choose not to
enforce the law or waive it through the administrative process.
Once we have secured our borders and are enforcing the law and
guaranteed these measures are working may we look to other
reforms.
With these principles setting the framework, we are here to
discuss potential reform for the very young, the children who
were brought illegally into this country as minors. These are
the children and young adults that for all intents and purposes
are culturally American. These are the children that grew up in
the United States and go to school with our children and
grandchildren, with my daughter. This is an issue of fairness,
law, and compassion. Many of these children know no other
Nation except for the United States. Their parents made a
decision to enter the country illegally and our broken system
did nothing to prevent it. They deserve to be afforded some
form that recognizes that they are here through no fault of
their own. It was not their decision to not follow the law. I
believe Members across the aisle can unite and agree that
providing them with some sort of immigration relief is the fair
thing to do. But this must be part of a step-by-step reform
package. The legislation addressing these young individuals
should not provide them with a treatment that is unfair to
those already following the legal process. Any legislation
addressing these children would need to be solely for the
benefit of the child and no one else. It cannot elicit chain
migration. During the process, we must find the appropriate
balance. And while these children remain innocent, we cannot
reward those family members who have broken the law.
And I have a story that I would like to share with the
Committee. In 2005, I had just been appointed to the Colorado
State Legislature, and I held one of my first town meetings on
the Eastern Plains in a small farm town. The government teacher
of the local high school brought the government class, the
entire class, to attend the meeting. There weren't many of
them. But during the question-and-answer period of the meeting,
a young girl stood up and introduced herself, proudly stating
that she was graduating first in her class, the valedictorian
of her senior class, and she had gone to school with those same
classmates since her kindergarten year, K through 12. She stood
up and said she was brought in this country when she was only a
few months old, brought into the country illegally. And she
asked this question, I will never forget. Do you support in-
state tuition for illegal aliens, she asked. I told her that I
did not because allowing passage of such a policy was avoiding
the real problem, it was failing to address the overall need
for immigration reform and that we can't start with in-state
tuition because we have to pursue meaningful immigration reform
first to fix the broken nature of our process before anything
else could happen. About a month ago, I was in the same small
town in the Eastern Plains, and I ran into this young girl once
again, same girl, the valedictorian of her high school, waiting
tables. Eight years later, we talked once again about the need
for immigration reform. Eight years later, nothing has
happened.
This time, Congress cannot just talk about immigration
reform. Congress must act. While there will be strong
disagreement about what to do, how to proceed, and what the end
policy will ultimately look like, we simply cannot do nothing.
We must act, and I believe we can do so in a way that 30 years
from now, 100 years from now, future generations of this
country, both immigrants and nonimmigrants, can say that back
then they did the right thing and it is working.
I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to
testify today.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Gardner.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gardner follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Cory Gardner,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado
Thank you Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and the other
members on this subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. The
panel is an important step to address immigration reform in a sensible
and systematic manner. In my district, immigration is an incredibly
important matter--for families trying to look for a better way of life
or agricultural interests hoping to harvest this year's crop.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 proved unworkable
and too-easily avoidable, and it helped result in approximately eleven
million people in the United States without documentation. We need
long-term, common sense legislation to fix this broken system. The
House is committed to moving forward with a step-by-step process, with
proper deliberation and debate surrounding each piece of reform. It is
important that we do this right--proving to the American people the
federal government can be trusted to build a lasting system that cannot
simply be put aside because it is unworkable or the political will is
simply not present to make it work.
This afternoon, I will share my views on how to move forward. I
believe any immigration reform effort must begin first with border
security and enforcement of the law. A strong guestworker program,
accompanied by a modernized e-verify system, is critical. I will also
discuss the potential reform for the very young--children--who were
brought illegally into this country as minors, and possible ways to
address this issue.
Many of us elected in 2010 came to Congress because we wanted to
put this nation back to work. We wanted to get government out of the
way in order to grow the economy so that people can find jobs and make
sure there is a better tomorrow. We came to Washington to keep the
American dream alive, and ensure that this great nation serves as a
beacon of hope for individuals and families that want to achieve the
American dream.
It has been said many times before--the United States is a nation
of immigrants. Had I not been blessed to have been born in this
country, I know I would have done everything I could to make sure my
family had the opportunity to grow up here. We are also a nation of
laws. Our current immigration laws have proven inadequate and are not
being enforced. If a law is not enforced or it is ignored, then we no
longer remain a nation of laws and the law becomes worth little more
than the paper upon which it is written. According to The Wall Street
Journal, between forty and forty-two percent of the undocumented people
in this country came here legally, but overstayed their visas. We need
to move forward by building a new system of immigration laws that will
stand strong and secure, but still allow a workable system for people
that want to be a part of this great nation and healthy economy to have
the opportunity to do so. I urge the House to be compassionate and fair
during this process.
Border security and interior enforcement remain my top priority
during this debate--it must come first. A government that cannot secure
its own border is a government that is not doing its job. The same is
with a government that cannot assure a legal workforce. In 1986, the
American people were promised interior enforcement during immigration
overhaul, but this never took place. Ignoring immigration laws for at
least two decades has resulted in at least eleven million undocumented
individuals throughout the nation. We can rebuild the trust of the
American people by securing the borders and enforcing the laws, and
making sure that no one can simply choose not to enforce the law or
waive it through administrative process. Not only do strong security
and enforcement measures need to exist in any reform, but there must be
confirmation from a credible, outside entity that these measures have
been satisfied and implemented.
Once we have secured our borders and are enforcing laws--knowing
the measures are working--we may look to other reform provisions.
Today, we are here to specifically discuss those amongst us who were
brought to the country as young children. These individuals, for all
intents and purposes, are culturally American. These are the young
adults and children who grew up in the United States and go to school
with our children and grandchildren, with my daughter. These children
know no other nation, except for the United States.
This is an issue of fairness, decency, and compassion. Their
parents made a decision to enter this country illegally and our broken
system did not prevent it. They deserve to be afforded some form of
legal status that recognizes that they are here through no fault of
their own. It is not their fault, nor was it their decision to not
follow the law. I believe Members across the aisle can unite and agree
that providing these children with some sort of immigration relief is
the just and fair thing to do. But it must be part of a step-by-step
reform package.
Any legislation that would address these children would need to be
solely for the benefit of the child, and no one else. It cannot elicit
chain migration. During this process we must find the appropriate
balance between compassion and justice. While these children remain
innocent, we cannot reward those family members who have broken the
law. However, the children do deserve to have the opportunity to
continue the American dream and we, as Members of Congress, should have
the compassion to provide them with this. In 2005, I had just been
appointed to the state legislature. I held one of my first town
meetings on the eastern plains of Colorado in a small farm town. The
government teacher of the local school brought the senior government
class to attend the meeting. During the question and answer portion of
the meeting a young girl stood up and introduced herself, proudly
stating that she was graduating first in her class, the valedictorian.
She had gone to school with her classmates, in the same school, since
kindergarten. But, she said, she was brought into this country when she
was only a few months old and she was illegal. ``Do you support in-
state tuition for illegal aliens?'' she asked.
I told her that I did not, because allowing passage of such a
policy was avoiding the real problem, it was not addressing the overall
need for immigration reform. We must pursue meaningful immigration
reform to fix the broken nature of the process before anything like
this can happen.
A month ago, on the eastern plains of Colorado, I saw this same
girl. The valedictorian of her class, waiting tables. Eight years
later, I once again talked about the need for immigration reform. Eight
years later, nothing has happened.
This time, Congress cannot just talk about reform. We must do it.
While there will be strong disagreement about what to do, how to
proceed, and what the end policy will ultimately look like, we cannot
simply do nothing. We must act. And I believe we can do so in a way
that, thirty years from now, future generations of this country--both
immigrants and non-immigrants--can say, they did it right. It is
working.
Again, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to
participate in today's hearing.
__________
Mr. Gowdy. I now recognize our friend and fellow Judiciary
Committee Member, Mr. Gutierrez.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy and Ranking Member
Lofgren, for inviting me to testify today and to the full
Committee Chairman, Chairman Goodlatte, for joining us as he
has during all of these hearings.
Twelve years ago, I introduced the first bill to legalize
the status of young people brought to this country by their
parents, the Immigrant Children's Educational Advantage and
Dropout Prevention Act, 2001. Since I introduced that first
bill, the movement for legal immigration, for immigration
reform, and for legalization has grown broader and deeper. In
every community today there are young people, religious people,
women, business owners, immigrant moms and dads and regular
civic-minded U.S. citizens organizing to make sure we pass
immigration reform this year in the U.S. Congress.
Over the August recess, Members of this Committee and
Members of the House of Representatives will see firsthand that
the desire for reform is real and present in their communities
across this Nation. We have recently heard the Speaker of the
House and the Majority Leader and a wide array of Republican
voices say they are for legalizing the status of children under
certain circumstances, including a pathway to citizenship. Wow.
DREAMers and others who support immigration reform must be
pretty darn persuasive. After all, look how far we have come in
such a sort time. Just 8 months ago, the Republican Party
platform said, deport them all, veto the DREAM Act, and make
every State pass Arizona S.B. 1070. Just a month ago, all but
six of the Republicans in the House voted to kill the funding
for the deferred action for childhood arrivals. Three weeks
ago, every single Republican on this panel voted to make every
undocumented young person a criminal.
But I am not here to chastise you. Rather, I am here to
say, thank you for taking a step in the right direction of
justice today. Now let us find a way to walk forward together
tomorrow. Those of us who have sat at the immigration reform
table for many, many lonely years are glad you are stepping up
and engaging in a conversation with us. We need you. Without
you, we cannot achieve success. If the Republican majority is
starting with the DREAMers because that is as far as you are
willing to go in terms of legal status for undocumented
immigrants, I say thank you for coming this far. Because even a
small step in the right direction is the first step in any good
faith negotiation. It says compromise may indeed be within
reach.
But let me be absolutely crystal clear and unequivocal,
legalizing only the DREAMers is not enough. It would not be
enough, given the years and decades of hard work and equities
that millions of immigrants have built in this country. It
would not be enough to satisfy the intense hunger for legality
in the immigrant community, the desire to pledge allegiance to
this country, the pride with which so many want some day to say
``I am an American citizen.'' And it is not enough to restore
the rule of law and truly fix a broken immigration system.
I have met with DREAMers and with their moms and dads, and
I want the same thing for their kids that I want for my two
wonderful daughters. I want an indivisible family. I cannot
imagine for 1 minute that Republicans who I know also honor the
sanctity of family want to legalize the children but leave the
rest of the family vulnerable to our broken immigration system.
After the election, I traveled to Missouri to meet with
United We Dream and other DREAM activist leaders. I was told in
no uncertain terms that they would not leave their parents
behind. I will let them speak for themselves because they are
well and truly capable of doing so, but let me tell you what I
saw.
But let me tell you what I saw. I saw a maturity and a
level of confidence that I think any politician would be a fool
not to consider. They will not settle for what is good for them
unless they can also win what is good for their families. And
do you know what? Do you know why? Because their parents
instilled values in them. Good and decent kids are raised by
good and decent parents. If we honor the children for being
upstanding and, quote, the kind of immigrants we like, then we
must honor the parents who helped raise them to be upstanding.
I suspect--no, Chairman Gowdy--I know that there is more to
come. This hearing and the legislation we understand is being
prepared by the majority I fully believe is just the first
step. I am optimistic that once you take one step toward
justice, you will take a second and a third and as many steps
as it takes until the thirst is extinguished. I want all of us
to walk there together.
Once you see that standing up for young and talented
immigrants feels good and right, you will want to stand up also
for their parents who raised and nurtured them. The DREAMers
will remember, the Nation will remember forever how this
Congress and this country treated their parents. We have come
such a long way, and we need to work together to keep America
moving forward.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
the op-ed written by my colleague, Congressman Mike Coffman,
titled ``The Time for Immigration Reform is Now''--it was
published this past Sunday in the Denver Post--be submitted for
the record. I have traveled to a lot of places but the op-ed in
the paper that welcomed me on Sunday morning in Denver when I
arrived this past Sunday is one of the best acts of welcoming I
have ever received. And I would like that to be introduced into
the record.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
Mr. Gutierrez. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to be
introduced into the record--consent to submit an editorial from
the Bakersfield Californian, the hometown newspaper of
Congressman David Valadao, with whom I shared a stage this past
Saturday in Bakersfield in his district, and this editorial
praises him for his willingness to compromise and engage
Members on both sides of the aisle on the immigration issue. I
ask that also be included in the record.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
[The material referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gutierrez follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Lofgren for inviting me
to testify.
I am always impressed by the depth and the breadth of the movement
in this country for immigration reform.
Twelve years ago, I introduced the first bill to legalize the
status of young people brought to this country by their parents, the
Immigrant Children's Educational Advantage and Dropout Prevention Act
of 2001 (H.R. 1582). That bill provided legal status to minors who had
lived in the U.S. for at least five years and who were students.
Needless to say, Congress never passed that bill or similar bills,
which is why we are here today.
At the time, immigration reform and standing up for undocumented
students was a pretty lonely place to stand.
But look at where we are today.
United We Dream, an advocacy group which is represented on our
second panel today, is just one of many advocacy groups and networks
that have fought the last dozen years for immigrant students and young
people. They are diverse, they are sophisticated, they are powerful,
and--having had various groups of immigrant youth protest at my offices
over the years--I can tell you, they are persistent.
Immigrant youth define the pro-immigrant movement and I want to say
thank you to them for your leadership, your courage, your risk-taking,
and your selflessness.
But they are not alone.
Today, the movement for legal immigration, for immigration reform,
and for legalization is broad and deep.
In every community in this country, there are young people, there
are religious people, there are women, there are business owners, there
are Latino, Asian and African and immigrant moms and dads, and there
are just regular, civic minded U.S. citizens organizing today to make
sure we pass immigration reform this year in the United States
Congress.
They stand with the DREAMers.
And the movement has grown in just the past few years.
When President Barack Obama was first elected President, I remember
Congressman Rahm Emanuel, then an immigration reform skeptic, sitting
me down with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky in Rahm's Chicago office for
the sole purpose of counting Democratic votes for immigration reform.
Our best guess was we had 185 solid Democratic votes for reform and
we would need 40-50 Republicans to join us.
For two years, the President, Speaker Pelosi and everyone else
said, ``We'd love to push for immigration reform, Luis, but bring us
the 40-50 Republican votes first and we'll talk about it.''
Not for want of trying, on my part and on the part of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus and many others to build support on both
sides of the aisle, we were fighting against the headwinds of the most
partisan period in recent American history.
Even Republicans who stood with us and who had co-sponsored the
DREAM Act or had co-sponsored the bipartisan bills I wrote with Jeff
Flake and John McCain and Ted Kennedy--even most of those Republicans
would not stand openly with us.
We were unable to show we had 218 votes to pass immigration reform
in the House.
Just two years ago, we were not sure we could pass the DREAM Act
when DREAMers, advocates, parents, educators and Democrats, including
the President and Speaker Pelosi, were ready to call the vote in
November 2010.
A ragtag, informal coalition of Democrats--and one or two stealthy
Republicans--helped us whip the DREAM Act vote, which took place on
December 8, 2010.
We passed the DREAM Act 216-198 and had 208 Democrats on board,
even better than what Emanuel and Schakowsky and I had calculated a
year or two earlier.
We had 8 Republicans join us, and two of them continue to serve to
this day.
And you know what? The sun came up the next morning. The world did
not spin off its axis. We had voted to legalize millions of young
people, yet civilized society did not crumble.
Over in the Senate, 55 Senators voted for the DREAM Act but because
of their arcane filibuster rules, it failed to come to a final vote. A
minority, mostly--but not exclusively--Republicans were able to thwart
what the American people and a majority in both Houses of Congress
favored.
Flash forward another year or so and the movement is growing still.
In 2011, there was a limited form of prosecutorial discretion for some
immigrants, including undocumented youth, which President Obama
announced as part of an expansion of local police involvement in
immigration enforcement.
In 2012, we were asking the President to help stop or slow down the
massive wave of deportations that were taking a heavy toll on families,
including DREAMers, in neighborhoods all across the country.
For almost two years after the DREAM Act filibuster prevented
passage of the bill, legal scholars and many others joined us to say
the President had extraordinary powers to examine the deportations of
DREAMers and suspend them because they were not in the national
interest.
The White House said they didn't have these powers under current
law, but what they really meant was that if they started to dial-back
the deportations against DREAMers and other groups of immigrants whose
departure weakened, not strengthened our country--powers that are clear
in current law and which the former Chairman of this Subcommittee has
acknowledged the President indeed has--that Republicans, starting in
this Subcommittee and going all the way to the Speaker's Office would
take action to stop the Obama Administration if they took any such
action.
And they were right.
The Republicans introduced the HALT Act to prevent the President
from exercising the executive branch's long-held power of prosecutorial
discretion. This bill would have suspended certain discretionary forms
of immigration relief, policies prioritizing the removal of ``criminal
aliens'' over ``non-criminal'' aliens and the authority to allow a
case-by-case examination of the deportation of DREAMers.
But the march towards justice for young immigrants continued
forward and in June 2012, the President announced he would let people
who met certain criteria apply to have their deportations deferred,
making them pay fees and submit fingerprints and documentation that
they fit the Department of Homeland Security's criteria to review their
cases.
In the city of Chicago on August 15th of last year, they came by
the thousands. Approximately 13,000 young people and their families
came to Navy Pier to get more information, find out what forms and what
documentation they would need and, if they were ready, to fill out
their application right on the spot.
There were lots of kids, but the people who came out in Chicago
that day were families. Little kids too young to apply. Teenagers who
were both timid and all grown-up at the same time, as only teenagers
can be. We had college students and graduates with degrees and some who
had to drop out of school to support themselves and their families.
And lots of Moms and Dads! They came to make sure they found out
what was going on. They had sacrificed their whole lives to make sure
their little boy or little girl had a chance in this country and they
were there to watch out for them, to pray for them, and to help make it
happen. They were overjoyed that their children were getting a chance
they wished they had for themselves or for their other children.
Senator Dick Durbin and Mayor Emanuel and half the elected
officials in town watched the 13,000 peaceful, hopeful people go
through that line and we knew we had come so far from 2001 when I first
introduced my bill.
We have heard the Speaker and the Majority Leader and a wide array
of Republican voices say they are for legalizing the status of children
under certain circumstances. I know as I look at the dais that there
are votes for the DREAM Act and for legalization of some immigrants
under some circumstances on the Republican half of the dais.
The movement we saw earlier in the year towards compromise and
cooperation is beginning to be visible again.
Just last November, every single Republican ran on a platform that
said no to any form of legalization ever.
In fact, every single undocumented immigrant--according to the
Party Platform adopted in Tampa--was to leave the country. All 11
million.
Your Presidential candidate said they had to self-deport. He said
the Arizona Law, SB1070, should be the law in every state. He said he
would veto the DREAM Act if it came to his desk.
Look how far we have come just in the last eight and a half months.
Now we have a growing consensus in the Republican Party that
legalization under some circumstances might be okay.
Look how far we have come since June 8th. Just over a month ago. On
that day, the House voted on the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill
and attached to that bill was an amendment offered by the gentleman
from Iowa, which said that any funds to protect immigrants from
deportation who were brought to the U.S. as children were to be
stripped from the bill.
Just a month ago, every single Republican who voted--except for
six--voted for the King Amendment. And every single democrat except for
three voted against it.
Just a week or so later, every Republican in this committee voted
to make every undocumented immigrant--whether they came here with a
visa and overstayed or if they came across the border or were smuggled
in without a visa--every single undocumented immigrant into a federal
fugitive.
We would dump into the criminal justice system 11 million
undocumented immigrants and then tell police, if you fail to go after
them, we will take your federal money away. We will strip the funds
that you use for community policing to make your neighborhoods safer,
unless you start the kind of local police roundup activities that made
Sheriff Joe Arpaio a household name in Spanish coast to coast.
Every Republican on the full committee voted for the SAFE Act. But
it gets worse.
Not only would the undocumented immigrants be federal fugitives
punishable with time in jail before they would be deported, their kids,
their parents, their spouses, their landlords, their employers, and
almost anyone else who has contact with them--could be charged with
harboring or abetting federal fugitives, given the new authority of the
States and police to enforce immigration law
That's possibly another 10, 20, or 30 million people we drop into
the criminal justice system. And everyone on that side of the dais
voted for that just two or three weeks ago.
What I am trying to say is that I have been one of the strongest
advocates for immigration reform, I learned a great deal from the
DREAMers, and we must be pretty darn effective.
Because just eight months after your platform said deport them,
just a month after all but six of you voted to make every last one of
them deportable, and just three weeks after every single one of you
voted for the SAFE Act to make them and their families all criminals,
here we are at a new turning point.
I am not here to slam you.
I am here to say thank you. I am here to say welcome aboard. Those
of us who have sat at this table and felt lonely are glad you are
stepping up again to talk this over with us.
If the Republican Majority is starting with the young people we
call DREAMers because that is as far as you are willing to go in terms
of legal status for undocumented immigrants, I say thank you for coming
this far, because taking a step in the right direction is the first
step in any good faith negotiation.
It is the first step that says a compromise may be within reach. It
is a place we can start.
Let me be clear, and unequivocal. Legalizing only the DREAMers is
not enough. It is not enough given all the hard work and equities that
millions of immigrants have built in this country. It is not enough to
satisfy the intense hunger for legality, the desire to pledge
allegiance to this country and the national interest in restoring the
rule of law.
But even saying that most of the 11 million are not, in fact,
leaving and that we must deal with reality in a new and more effective
way is an important first step towards compromise.
I suspect there is something else going on. I suspect that this is
a first step and that there are others to come. This hearing and the
legislation we understand is being prepared by the Majority is like
dipping your toe in the water.
Maybe if you feel comfortable with one toe, we can work with you to
dip another toe in the water.
I am optimistic that once you take a step towards justice, you will
take a second one.
Once you see that standing up for young immigrants feels good and
feels right, you will want to do it more.
They are delightful young Americans who are just as American as my
kids and your kids, but they don't have that crucial piece of paper
that says they can live here with the full rights--and
responsibilities--of my children and your children.
As Congressman Coffman and Congressman Denham knows, they want to
join the military. They want to serve this country because it is the
only country many of them know.
We are simply talking about the paperwork of our immigration system
catching up with the reality of our society. And we in this
Subcommittee and in this Congress can act to make sure that paperwork
catches up with reality.
Through this process, you are meeting young undocumented immigrants
and I challenge you to tell them apart from their other immigrant and
native U.S. born classmates and neighbors.
When my daughter brought home friends from school, we didn't check
the kids' papers. We didn't ask for a birth certificate. And when their
parents came to pick them up at our house, we didn't ask for their
papers, either.
We talked like parents do about our daughters; about how they were
growing up so fast, about how kids growing up in America have so many
opportunities and so many hurdles and how things were simpler in our
day, regardless of whether they grew up in Chicago like me or someplace
else.
Their kids were growing up here just like my kids were growing up
here and probably in some cases, the parents, and maybe the kids, were
undocumented immigrants.
The question before us today is not whether we should legalize the
young people who grew up here. I think my colleagues--not only the
majority in the House, but a majority of Republicans--would support
such a bill crafted in the right way.
In the bipartisan group I am a part of, we are crafting a bill that
allows DREAMers to legalize their status and get on a quicker path to
permanent residency. This is the consensus of the group, including
among our most conservative members.
But what our bill does is to look not just at the individual
immigrant, but at their family.
How can you legalize the status of a teenager and deny legal status
to their parent?
How do you slice and dice the family, such that those who were
brought here as children get one set of circumstances and their older
siblings get something else? Or their parents?
I think we should look at immigrants as most of them look at
themselves. As members of families with different generations and
different circumstances, but each with a unique and powerful
contribution to make to American society and to each other.
We should be uniting and strengthening the family unit, not
dividing them up.
George W. Bush said that ``family values do not end at the Rio
Grande,'' and I think we should examine exactly which side of that
river he was talking about.
When I traveled to Missouri after the election to meet with United
We DREAM and other DREAM activists and leaders, I was told in no
uncertain terms that they would not leave their parents behind.
Many of them are among the 400,000 young people who have received
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA.
With fees paid, fingerprints taken and criminal background checks
passed, DACA recipients are in a safe place when it comes to
deportation and they can work legally and apply for a driver's license
in nearly every state.
But despite being in a safe place, they will not leave their moms
and their dads and their siblings by the side of the road.
I will let them speak for themselves because they are well and
fully capable of doing so, but let me tell you what I saw.
I saw a maturity and a level of confidence that I think any
politician would be a fool to mess with.
They are here. They are staying. They are not afraid. And they will
not settle for what is good for them unless they can also win what is
good for their families.
They will remember forever how this country treats their parents.
Their generation, whether they are immigrants or native born Americans,
will remember what we do in this Committee in this Congress.
We have come a long way, but we need to work together to keep
moving forward.
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. Again on behalf of all
of us, I full well recognize that you are needed on the floor
and in Committee and you have constituents that are waiting on
you and the fact that the four of you would take the time to
come and testify we are all very, very grateful for your
perspective and your insight.
We have another panel, so we will stand down just for a
moment while the three of you go about and Mr. Gutierrez
hopefully will join us. And with that, we will be in recess for
5 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gowdy. I want to thank our first panel again for their
time and expertise and now turn our attention to our second
group of witnesses, and we are equally grateful for their
presence. We will begin, as is our custom with non-Member
witnesses, by having you rise and take an oath. If you would
all please rise and lift your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Gowdy. Let the record reflect all witnesses answered in
the affirmative. You may be seated. Well, thank you again and I
am going to read all of your biographies at once and then
recognize you individually for your 5-minute opening statement.
And we will start with Dr. Barrett Duke. He is the Vice
President for Public Policy and Research and Director of
Research Institute of the Ethics and Religious Liberty
Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention's Agency for
Applied Christianity. He has been with the group since 1997.
Dr. Duke graduated summa cum laude with a BA from Criswell
College. He received a Master's with honors in Old Testament
studies in 1985 from Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary and a
Ph.D. in religious and theological studies from joint doctoral
program of the, I'm probably not going to pronounce this right,
let's just say the School of Theology at the University of
Denver. How is that?
Mr. Duke. Yes, sir. That works.
Mr. Gowdy. Welcome. And then we will have Ms. Margie
McHugh. She will be our next witness, Co-Director of the
Migration Policy Institute's National Center on Immigrant
Integration Policy, where she provides in-depth research and
policy analysis on a broad range of immigrant immigration
issues. Prior to joining MPI, Ms. McHugh served for 15 years as
Executive Director of the New York Immigration Coalition, as
Deputy Director of the New York City's 1990 Census Project and
as Executive Assistant to New York Mayor Ed Koch's Chief of
Staff. She is a graduate of Harvard and Radcliffe colleges.
Welcome, Ms. McHugh.
Ms. Pamela Rivera is a native of Florida and a daughter of
immigrants from Colombia. She is a graduate of Florida State
University and currently pursuing a Master's Degree at the
University of Florida. She has worked for various nonprofit
causes, including the Salvation Army. Although she is a United
States citizen, her sister is an undocumented immigrant who was
brought to the United States at a young age by her parents.
Welcome, Ms. Rivera.
And last but not least, Ms. Rosa Velazquez is a member of
the National Coordinating Committee of the United We Dream
Network and Cofounder and Executive Director of the Arkansas
Coalition for DREAM. She is also a board member of the Arkansas
United Community Coalition. She was brought to the United
States unlawfully by her parents when she was 5 years old and
has resided in Arkansas for nearly her entire life. She is
currently studying at Henderson State University and Harding
University where she is pursuing two Master's Degrees, one in
English as a Second Language and the other in American
Literature. Welcome, Ms. Velazquez.
Dr. Duke, we will start with you and then you will have a
series of light panels in front of you and they mean what they
traditionally mean in life, green is go, yellow, slow down; and
red is kind of summarize if you are able to do so. With that
welcome again, Dr. Duke.
TESTIMONY OF BARRETT DUKE, Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC
POLICY AND RESEARCH, THE ETHICS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
COMMISSION OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION
Mr. Duke. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman
Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and Members of the Subcommittee.
As you heard, I am Dr. Barrett Duke. I'm the Vice President for
Public Policy and Research for the Southern Baptist
Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Subcommittee this
afternoon from a faith-based perspective on the subject of
children who were brought here by their parents contrary to our
Nation's immigration laws.
The Subcommittee is right to view this group of
undocumented immigrants differently from those who came here as
adults. These are people who did not make a conscious decision
to break the Nation's immigration laws. They were brought here
as minors. This is the only life they know. It is likely that
they identify more with this country and its culture than they
do with the country and culture from which their parents
brought them. This is their home, in other words.
Our country should not hold these children accountable for
the choices their parents made. Would anyone in this room want
to or expect to be held accountable for decisions their parents
made? I think not. Such distinctions are abhorrent to us as
Americans. Many of our forebears came to this land to escape
such types of social stratification. In this land, every person
is to be judged by his or her own character and
accomplishments, not those of his or her parents. God Himself
has pledged such an approach to individual accountability. In
the Hebrew scriptures, held by me and billions of others as
God's revealed will, the prophet Ezekiel speaking God's
pronouncement declared, ``A son won't suffer punishment for a
father's iniquity and a father won't suffer punishment for the
son's iniquity.'' If God will not hold children accountable for
the sins of their parents, certainly we should not either.
As an evangelical Christian, I rely heavily on the
teachings of the Bible to help me develop my thoughts about all
aspects of life, my own and my Nation's. I fully support the
Biblical teaching of the divine origin and role of government
as laid out in such passages as Roman's Chapter 13, verses 1
through 5. However, that passage does not give government the
freedom to act in any way it chooses. It states that God's
design for government is to punish bad behavior and to reward
good behavior. Surely, we would all agree that this is a
fundamental purpose of government. While every person brought
to this country illegally as a minor should not qualify for
special consideration by the Subcommittee, many certainly
should. Those who are of good moral character and a
demonstrated desire to make their own way through life should
be given a chance to come out of the shadows and join in the
full life and vitality of our Nation. We should, in other
words, reward their good behavior.
This is a group of people who embody many of the
characteristics we value in Americans. This is the spirit our
Nation celebrates. We should celebrate that spirit in these
young men and women as well and provide a way forward for them.
As you consider legislation to assist these children of
undocumented immigrants to fully prepare for full and
productive lives in our Nation, here are some things I would
urge you to consider:
First, it is difficult to imagine how you can fully address
their needs without also addressing the needs of the other
undocumented immigrants in our Nation, including their parents.
It is my hope and prayer that Congress will see this as one
piece of a bigger plan that meets the principles of sound
immigration reform. We can honor the rule of law, secure our
borders and chart a just and compassionate way forward for the
millions of other undocumented immigrants living peacefully and
productively in our midst.
Second, some parameters are in order as you chart a way
forward for these young people. I suggested some in my full
testimony, which you have, like evidence of prior residence in
the country, enrollment in higher education or some form of
national service like the military, which you just heard the
gentleman speak of, completion of high school or a GED,
granting a provisional legal status while they fulfill their
obligation, and then eligibility for a green card and
citizenship afterward.
I thank the Committee for your willingness to tackle this
important matter. We are dealing with lives here, not only
laws. Let justice be blind, but let her also be discerning.
Their character and drive reveal that these young men and women
under consideration represent some of the best of what we are
looking for in our future citizenry. We should welcome them and
encourage them and empower them to stand tall.
As we honor them and their commitment, we say to a watching
world and likely to a watching citizenry that this really is
still the land of opportunity and promise.
That concludes my comments. I look forward to attempting to
answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Dr. Duke.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barrett Duke, Ph.D., Vice President for Public
Policy and Research, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the
Southern Baptist Convention
Good afternoon, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and members
of the subcommittee. I am Dr. Barrett Duke, vice president for public
policy and research for the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics &
Religious Liberty Commission. As you are aware, the Southern Baptist
Convention is the nation's largest non-Catholic denomination, with
nearly 16 million members worshipping in more than 46,000 autonomous
local congregations. The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is the
official Southern Baptist entity charged by the Southern Baptist
Convention to speak to our nation's moral, cultural, and religious
liberty matters. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the
subcommittee this afternoon from a faith-based perspective on the
subject of children who were brought here by their parents contrary to
our nation's immigration laws.
The subcommittee is right to view this group of undocumented
immigrants differently from those who came here as adults. These are
people who did not make a conscious decision to break the nation's
immigration laws. They were brought here as minors. This is the only
life they know. It is likely that they identify more with this country
and its culture than they do with the country and culture from which
their parents brought them. This is their home.
Our country should not hold these children accountable for the
choices their parents made. Would anyone in this room want to or expect
to be held accountable for decisions their parents made? I think not.
Such class distinctions are abhorrent to us as Americans. Many of our
forebears came to this land to escape such types of social
stratification. In this land, every person is to be judged by his or
her own character and accomplishments, not those of his ancestors or
her parents. God, Himself, has pledged such an approach to individual
accountability. In the Hebrew Scriptures, held by me and billions of
others as God's revealed will, the prophet Ezekiel, speaking God's
pronouncement, declared, ``A son won't suffer punishment for a father's
iniquity, and a father won't suffer punishment for the son's iniquity''
(Ezekiel 18:20). If God will not hold children accountable for the sins
of their parents, certainly we should not either.
As an evangelical Christian, I rely heavily on the teachings of the
Bible to help me develop my thoughts about all aspects of life, my own
and my nation's. I fully support the biblical teaching of the divine
origin and role of government as laid out in such passages as Romans
13:1-5. However, that passage does not give government the freedom to
act in any way it chooses. It states that God's design for government
is to punish bad behavior and to reward good behavior. Surely, we would
all agree that this is a fundamental purpose of government.
While every person brought to this country illegally as a minor
should not qualify for special consideration by this subcommittee, many
certainly should. Those who are of good moral character and demonstrate
a desire to make their own way through life should be given a chance to
come out of the shadows and join in the full life and vitality of our
nation. We should reward their good behavior. This is a group of people
who embody many of the characteristics that we value in Americans. This
is the spirit our nation celebrates. We should celebrate that spirit in
these young men and women, as well, and provide a way forward for them.
As you consider legislation to assist these children of
undocumented immigrants to fully prepare for full and productive lives
in this nation, here are some things I would urge you to consider.
First, it is difficult to imagine how you can fully address their needs
without also addressing the needs of the other undocumented immigrants
in our nation, including their parents. It is my hope and prayer that
Congress will see this as one piece of a bigger plan that meets the
principles of sound immigration reform. We can honor the rule of law,
secure our borders, and chart a just and compassionate way forward for
the millions of other undocumented immigrants living peacefully and
productively in our midst.
Second, some parameters seem to be in order. These young women and
men should be able to prove they were minors when they were brought
here, and they should have been here for some period of time prior to
the enactment of your legislation so that we make sure we don't
encourage a rush into the country by parents hoping to take advantage
of this country's good will. They should demonstrate that they are
young men and women of strong moral character, with a commitment to
their futures. Their legal records and a commitment to pursue some form
of higher education, possibly college or technical school, or some form
of service to their country, like joining the armed services, should be
a sufficient guide for that. As a sign of their good faith commitment
to pursue these goals, they should have successfully completed high
school or passed the GED exam. They should be granted a provisional
legal status that protects them from deportation while they are in
higher education or some other acceptable activity. Following
successful completion of their tracks, they should be allowed to apply
for a green card and eventually citizenship if they desire it.
As I said earlier, I think you must also consider the parents of
these young people. They are likely still their principal supporters,
especially of those who pursue an education track. I do not think that
you can confer a legal status on their parents through this
legislation. That should be part of the broader immigration reform that
must be done. But, until you do that, you should do what you can to
prevent the use of the children's records as a means to identify their
parents for deportation. A simple solution might be to seal that part
of the children's records from governmental inquiry.
There is also the important matter of cost for those who pursue
higher education. I know Congress is debating that issue for our
nation's college students now. You know how much college costs. We
shouldn't make it impossible for these young, aspiring people to attain
the goal we have held out to them. If we are serious about helping them
to reach their full potential, and we should certainly be so, then we
should do what we can to make it possible for them to obtain some form
of financial assistance if they need it. The states should decide
whether they can qualify for in-state tuition. But I would urge you to
consider whether the federal government can help. Currently, non-
citizens with proper documentation or who meet certain criteria can
seek federal education funds, like refugees, assylees, victims of
human-trafficking, and others. So, there is already somewhat of a
precedent for this.
I thank the committee for your willingness to tackle this important
matter. We are dealing with lives here, not only laws. Let justice be
blind, but let her also be discerning. Their character and drive reveal
that these young men and women under consideration represent some of
the best of what we are looking for in our future citizenry. We should
welcome them and encourage them, and do all we can to empower them to
stand tall. As we honor them and their commitment, we say to a watching
world, and likely, a watching citizenry, that this really is still a
land of opportunity and promise.
That concludes my comments. I look forward to attempting to answer
any questions you might have.
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Ms. McHugh.
TESTIMONY OF MARGIE McHUGH, CO-DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER ON
IMMIGRATION INTEGRATION POLICY, MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE
Ms. McHugh. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, good
afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you
today. I've been asked to testify about the broad demographics
of the population of young, unauthorized immigrants who were
brought here as children and have since established deep roots
in this country. Since the more generic analysis of this
population does not exist, I will rely in my testimony on a
detailed analysis I co-authored in 2010 of the then DREAM Act
population which looked at the size and key sociodemographic
characteristics of unauthorized immigrants who had entered the
U.S. before age 16 and were continuously present in the U.S.
for at least 5 years.
Our analysis found that approximately 2.1 million children
and youths were potentially either immediately eligible for
conditional legal status or could become eligible in the
future. Our study divided the age and date of arrival of
eligible populations into four subgroups based on their age and
level of education, and we estimated each group's likelihood of
meeting the requirements to obtain legal permanent residence,
which in that case included completion of a college degree or
at least 2 years of post-secondary education or military
service.
Very quickly, the four subgroups broke out as follows: the
largest was school-age children who would become eligible in
the future if they graduated from high school or earned a GED
and completed post-secondary education or military service
requirements. Forty-three percent of potential beneficiaries
were in this category, or 934,000 children under age 18.
The next largest group, at 28 percent, were those who had
already earned a high school diploma or GED but would need to
pursue college or military service in order to obtain a green
card.
Next, about 23 percent, or nearly 500,000 youths, were
those over age 18 who lacked a high school diploma. They could
potentially become eligible in the future if they completed a
high school diploma or GED and subsequently completed post-
secondary education or military service.
And, finally, we estimated that about 5 percent, or 114,000
of the 2.1 million, had already obtained at least an
associate's degree, and, thus would be immediately eligible for
a green card.
You will see in my written testimony that we looked further
at key sociodemographic characteristics of the population and
challenges many of these young people would face in completing
college or being accepted into the military. These included
affording college tuition and fees, needing to work to support
themselves or their families, juggling parenting
responsibilities and closing gaps in academic English
proficiency. Overall, we estimated that only 38 percent of the
2.1 million who were potentially eligible based on their age,
date of arrival and duration of residency would be able to meet
the educational attainment or military service requirements in
the legislation proposed at that time.
Since the cost of higher education and access to financial
aid are such critical factors affecting college completion for
low-income youth based on historical trends, we found that
college affordability was likely to be the most significant
factor that would prevent young immigrants from completing a
post-secondary education requirement.
Our profile of the potentially eligible population is
consistent with national research demonstrating that young
immigrants are more likely to be nontraditional college
students, meaning that they often enroll in post-secondary
education at older ages, attend college part time, work while
going to school and juggle family responsibilities along with
their coursework. All of these factors have been associated
with lower rates of college enrollment and completion,
therefore a financial, social and academic support stands to
play a critical role in the success of this population if their
pathway to permanent residence and citizenship requires
successfully making one's ways through post-secondary education
or military service.
I would like to point out before closing that more recently
the Congressional Budget Office estimated that approximately
1.5 million unauthorized immigrants would meet the age at
arrival criteria under a version of DREAM included in recent
Senate immigration legislation. CBO estimated that
approximately 24 percent of these, 360,000, would be able to
achieve permanent residence or naturalized by 2023.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while the MPI and CBO
estimates are based on different parameters, it does seem clear
that approximately 1.5 million to 2 million youths meet the
residency and age at arrival requirements contemplated in
recent legislative proposals, but far fewer would gain
permanent residence, and eventually citizenship, under these
proposals, approximately 825,000 individuals in our analysis
and 360,000 in CBO's assessment of S. 744.
In light of the reality that the pathway is a narrow one,
the sociodemographic characteristics of unauthorized immigrants
brought here as children provide important considerations for
policymakers seeking to allow them to successfully achieve
permanent legal status in the United States and become fully
contributing members of our society.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify
and would be pleased to answer any questions.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Ms. McHugh.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McHugh follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Ms. Rivera.
TESTIMONY OF PAMELA RIVERA, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Rivera. I want to take this opportunity to thank
Chairman Gowdy and the Subcommittee for letting me share my
very personal story.
My parents moved to the United States in the 1980's, and I
was born in 1987 in California. Shortly after my birth, they
moved back to Colombia with money they had saved working in the
U.S. and tried to pursue a life there. They had my sister
Evelyn while we were living in Colombia, and in 1991 when I was
4 and Ev was 3, they moved back to the U.S.
They moved back in order to provide a better life for us.
They wanted us to live without the drugs, violence and daily
car bombings that defined daily life in Colombia and for us to
have a chance at obtaining a world-class education and
fulfilling the American Dream.
For many years, I did not know about my family's
immigration status. However, as the years passed, I began to
understand that my family was not like most. And even though my
parents worked hard to provide for our family, we would never
be treated the same.
My dad worked nights and my mom worked mornings in order to
make sure that my two sisters and I were never left alone. They
understood the meaning of family and how important it was to
raise their daughters in a stable home. My mom learned English
quickly by volunteering at our school and working with us on
our homework. I remember my mom asking my teachers to send home
extra homework even on Fridays so that my sisters and I would
catch up to other students.
My youngest sister Sara was born here in Florida in 1993.
We all grew up in the same home, attended the same schools,
spoke English, played lacrosse, but there was one major
difference that would come to dominate our lives. Sara and I
were natural born U.S. citizens, while my sister Evelyn was
brought here on a now-expired visa.
It wasn't until high school that I found out for sure about
my family's immigration status. There were so many little
things that would come up what that I could not do, I had to
work twice as hard to figure out because of the situation. For
example, I was not able to get my driver's license when I
turned 16. And I cannot tell you how hard it is as a teenager
to not be able to drive. As hard as this was for my youngest
sister and for me, there was always the light at the end of the
tunnel, we were U.S. citizens. Ev did not have that. She had to
go through high school graduation knowing that there was no
relief in sight, no path to college, no path to a normal job.
She had to walk across that stage and into the shadows.
The somewhat normal life she had gotten to live in the only
home she had ever known was over, she also had to walk across
that stage without our mom watching because our mom a couple
months before had been pulled over at a traffic stop, arrested
and forced to leave the country, all of this happening with my
sister in the car.
This all occurred while I was a sophomore in college, and I
cannot put into words the level of devastation this caused. It
affected my personal well-being, it affected my academic
success. My sisters and I worked hard in school and all earned
Bright Futures Scholarships. But unlike my youngest sister and
I, Evelyn was unable to claim her scholarship because of her
undocumented status.
As a U.S. citizen, I have been able to pursue the American
Dream. I'm a graduate of Florida State University and I'm
currently pursuing my Master's Degree at the University of
Florida.
Living in a mixed-status family, I have learned to cherish
every moment I have with my family, especially since we've lost
our mom. As a U.S. citizen, I'm hopeful that Congress finds a
way to keep this from happening to other families. As of last
year, it had been over 6 years since Ev had seen her mom. It
has been over 6 years since her life as she knew it came to a
halt. This is the only home she knows. She has been here for 21
years. Yet she is punished every day and forced to live a life
in limbo for no reason at all.
The American Dream has been bittersweet for my family. I've
had to watch my sister and others like her be denied
opportunities afforded to us in the only country she has ever
known by what amounts to an accident of birth.
Thank you so much for letting me share my story.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Ms. Rivera.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rivera follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pamela Rivera, Washington, DC
I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Goodlatte,
ranking member Conyers and distinguished members of this committee for
this opportunity to testify.
My parents moved to the United States in the 1980's and I was born
in 1987. Shortly after my birth they moved back to Colombia with money
they had saved working in the US and tried to pursue a life there. They
had my sister Evelyn while we were living in Colombia. In 1991 when I
was 4 years old they moved back to the U.S. in order to provide a
better life for my sister and me. They wanted us to live without the
drugs, violence, and daily car bombings that defined daily life in
their native Colombia; and for us to have a chance of obtaining a
world-class education and fulfilling the American Dream.
For many years I did not know about my family's immigration status.
However, as the years passed I began to understand that my family was
not like most, and even though my parents worked hard to provide for
our family we would never be treated the same. My father worked nights
and my mother worked in the morning in order to make sure that my two
sisters and I were never left alone. They understood the meaning of
family and how important it was to raise their daughters in a stable
home.
My mother learned English quickly by volunteering at our school and
working with us on our homework. I remember my mom asking my teacher to
send home extra homework so that my sister and I would catch up to the
other students. My youngest sister was born here in the U.S. in 1993.
We all grew up in the same home, attended the same schools, spoke
English, and played lacrosse, but there was one major difference that
would come to dominate our lives: I was a natural born U.S. citizen
while my sister Evelyn was brought to the United States on a now-
expired visa.
It wasn't until high school that I found out for sure about my
family's immigration status. I was unable to get my drivers license
until I was 18 because my parents could not take me to the DMV. There
were so many little things that would come up that I could not do or
had to work twice as hard to figure out because of this situation. All
of this was with the knowledge that my youngest sister and I were U.S.
citizens, and that for us there was a light at the end of the tunnel.
Evelyn did not have that. She had to go through her high school
graduation knowing that there was no relief in sight--no path to
college, no path to a normal job. She knew she had to walk across that
stage and into the shadows, and that the somewhat normal life she had
gotten to live in the only home she had ever known was over. She also
had to walk across that stage without our mom watching, because our
mother was forced to leave under voluntary departure.
My sisters and I worked hard in school and all earned the Bright
Futures Scholarship but unlike our youngest sister and me, Evelyn was
unable to claim her scholarship because of her undocumented status.
As a Citizen of the United States, I have been able to pursue the
American Dream: I am an alumna of the Florida State University, and am
currently pursuing a master's degree at the University of Florida.
Living in a mixed status family I have learned to cherish every
moment I have with my family especially since we have lost our mother.
We have to be proactive on issues. We have to protect our families. It
has now been over 6 years since Eve has seen our mom. It has been 6
years since her life as she knew it came to a halt. This is the only
home she knows, she broke no laws, she did nothing wrong, yet she is
punished every day and forced to live in limbo--for no reason at all.
The American Dream has been bittersweet for us. I have had to watch
my sister be denied the opportunities afforded to us, in the only
country she has ever known, by what amounts to an accident of birth.
__________
Mr. Gowdy. Ms. Velazquez.
TESTIMONY OF ROSA VELAZQUEZ,
ARKANSAS COALITION FOR DREAM
Ms. Velazquez. I would like to thank Chairman Gowdy,
Ranking Member Lofgren, and the distinguished Members of this
Committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Rosa
Velazquez. I'm 30 years old. And ever since I was 5, Arkansas
has been my home. I'm as Arkansan as the Arkansas Razorbacks,
the Harding Bisons and the Henderson Reddies.
I'm honored to be a member of the United We Dream National
Coordinating Committee. United We Dream is the largest
immigrant youth led group network in the country made up of 51
affiliates in 25 States. As a network, United We Dream is
committed to winning citizenship for our families and
communities, all 11 million Americans without papers, and to
creating an immigration system that treats all Americans with
dignity, parents like my mother who was 22 years old when we
came to the U.S.
Sadly, like so many other parents, her story has been
forgotten. She made the courageous decision to travel alone
with my 4-year-old brother Rudy and myself. I was 5. My mother
packed all of our things in a backpack, and in August 1989 we
got in a plane in Mexico City and we arrived in Dallas, Texas.
My father Rodolfo would join us a year later in Arkansas.
Throughout my schooling, I was involved in every club,
organization and civic group I could be a part of. I have
always had the desire to be involved but it was in music that I
found my true passion. I remember that the best performances I
had were at Ouachita Baptist University where I would later be
offered a choral scholarship. My parents taught me that our
family values were greater than anything, and where one went,
the rest followed. I can remember vividly the day that I
enrolled at Ouachita Baptist University. My parents went with
me. They went with me when I chose my classes, when I looked at
my dorm and when I went into the financial aid office. It was
at this office that I found out that I was no longer eligible
for a scholarship. I was undocumented, and I saw my once-in-a-
lifetime opportunity slip through my fingers because I lacked
legal status. To be fully eligible, I had to be a U.S. citizen.
It was then that my mother took my hand with tears in her eyes
and she told me that I could do anything that I set my mind to.
So if I wanted to go to college, I was going to go to college.
My mother's hardworking hands are the reason that I'm here
today and she is also the reason that I am currently a grad
student at Henderson State University and Harding University in
Arkansas, and I'm pursuing two Master's Degrees one in ESL
English and one in American Literature. She is also the reason
that my brother, Rudy, is going to the University of Arkansas
in Fayetteville where in 2 years he will achieve a Bachelor's
Degree in culinary arts. And she is also the reason that my 12-
year-old brother Randy, a U.S. citizen, has high hopes and
aspirations to attend college in the future.
Arkansas is the poultry capital of the world. We have
several poultry processing plants and this is where my mother
first began her work. Her job for the next 10 years was to cut
chicken tenders with scissors and arrange them in the little
yellow trays that you are able to purchase today at any grocery
store.
As I sit here today telling you about my achievements and
my successes, my mother, who has sacrificed everything for me
with her hard work, is now suffering with carpal tunnel
syndrome.
When Members of Congress tell me that I deserve the
opportunity to earn citizenship and my mother doesn't, I tell
them that if anyone deserves that opportunity to earn
citizenship, it is my mother Rosalinda. My mother did what any
mother facing uncertainty would have done--provide a better
life for her children.
This is the land of opportunity where we learned that with
hard work and perseverance, we have the opportunity to succeed.
If Congress were to adopt an incomplete solution that would
provide a path to earn citizenship for DREAMers like me but
something less for our parents, it be like saying that I can
now be one of you, but my parent can never be, that our
hardworking parents are good enough to pick up your crops, to
babysit your children, to landscape your yards, but they will
never be treated as equal members of society. The solution that
includes only DREAMers and people like me will lead to further
separation of families and will in no way provide the answer
that you seek.
Fix our broken immigration system. Do we really want to
ignore the values that history has taught us by giving our
parents a sit at the back of the line--bus type of
legalization?
I am talented in many fields. I am an asset to this country
but my mother's hardworking hands are the foundation on which
this country was built. I am my mother's daughter. She and I
are equal. My name is Rosa Angela Velazquez Figueroa. I am the
daughter of Rosalinda and Rodolfo Velazquez and the sister to
Rudy and Randy Velazquez. I am undocumented. I am one of the 11
million. And together, we are the American Dream.
Thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Ms. Velazquez.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Velazquez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Gowdy. I'm only going to say this once. No response
from the audience. We are going to have order in this. It's
fine to express yourself internally. No visible response.
With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Virginia,
the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And it is
my pleasure to ask some questions of the witnesses and I would
like to start with you, Ms. Rivera. I very much appreciate your
testimony and that of Ms. Velazquez.
Ms. Velazquez said that she didn't think there should be
any difference between all of the 11 million people who are
seeking to come here between herself and her mother, for
example. But you know your parents. You probably know the
parents of other people who have children who are not lawfully
present in the United States. And my question for you is, would
your parents and do you think other parents would be supportive
of legislation that would allow your sister and other young
people brought here at an early age to get legal status and
ultimately U.S. citizenship but did not address their
situation; in other words, parents' situations in the same way?
Ms. Rivera. You know that is an incredibly difficult
question to answer. My parents like I'm sure any other parents
want what is the absolute best for their children. So you know
it's easy to say that, yes, they would be very happy with that.
But at the same time I can tell you that the pain of not having
my mother with us is something that I really can't put into
words and it is not something that I feel comfortable saying
I'm okay with.
Mr. Goodlatte. Your mother is not here in the United
States.
Ms. Rivera. Yes, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte. But if she were here in the United States
and she got a different status, say a legal status as opposed
to a citizenship status, how would she feel about that?
Ms. Rivera. My mom is, I know everyone says their mom is
the best, but my mom is the best, and she from the minute they
came here, as I said in my testimony, she was at my teachers'
classrooms every day you know helping out, making sure that
that we, you know, were as involved in our community as
possible. It was at the time extremely annoying and I can only
say that when it comes to my family, knowing my mom, she wants
to be a part of this country. She still thinks, she still
thinks of herself as an American even though she is in
Colombia. So, I feel as though my mom would like a shot at
being a citizen and she wants the opportunity and the
responsibility that comes with that.
You know, again, we had up until that happened lived here,
my parents for close to 20 years before she left. My dad is now
a legal resident. He lives here. This is for them, what has
become their lives. It is the only home we have ever known, so
it is very difficult for me to say we would be okay with that
and quite frankly, I wouldn't be okay with that. I know the
sacrifices my parents made. I know the long hours my dad
worked. I know how hard it was for them to be separated from
everything they knew as their home, so I wouldn't want to have
to make that decision.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, I certainly understand that you would
not want them to have to make that decision, but Congress has
to make that decision. And that is the hard part.
Let me ask Dr. Duke if you would comment on the problem
that we have here of determining how we proceed to assure that
we don't have future children brought here through the desert,
in the backs of trailers, under tunnels and so on, into the
United States illegally. So in order for Congress not to be
back in the same position of debating whether to grant legal
status to another 11 million illegal immigrants 20 years from
now, what enforcement kinds of measures does the Southern
Baptist Convention support being put into place?
Mr. Duke. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. It is a
concern to Southern Baptists as well that we resolve this at
this time and that we not have to come back here again as well.
I think most Southern Baptists are saying, secure the border
and workplace verification. They believe those two components
would have a lot to do with addressing the future of illegal
immigration. If folks can't get work here it's going to pretty
much discourage them from coming. And so we do believe that
those are a couple of components. There are certainly many
others that the Committee should consider as well.
Mr. Goodlatte. And in your testimony you mention that a
commitment to the pursuit of a higher education or military
service should be a sufficient guide to show that these young
people have good moral character and a commitment to their
futures and thus should be afforded a path to legal status.
What should happen to young illegal immigrants who do not show
such a commitment and are not of good moral character?
Mr. Duke. You know, that is a really tough question in my
opinion. The legislation under consideration here to me
requires a certain level of moral character as well as a
commitment to the future, to their futures and so I think that
is going to be necessary for this special track for these
particular young people. I think the rest are going to have to
simply be considered along with all of the other 10 million or
so undocumented immigrants in our country that the Committee is
going to have to figure out how they address. There are going
to be some adults who aren't going to be able to qualify for
whatever this Committee, the Committee and ultimately Congress
chooses to do as well. And, unfortunately, some of those
children as well are going to be caught in a situation where
they have made wrong choices and they have made it nearly
impossible for themselves to find a way for this country to be
able to grant them the kind of legal status that we would like
to give them.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Doctor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. The Chair will
now recognize the gentlelady from California, the Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of
our witnesses for simply excellent testimony that not only
informs us but I think informs people who are watching this
hearing across the country on C-SPAN and other Members of
Congress who are watching it in their offices. It is very
important that you are here.
Listening to our two young ladies, Ms. Rivera and Ms.
Velazquez, very powerful testimony that you have given and as I
was listening to Mr. Goodlatte's, Chairman Goodlatte's question
I was thinking about the relationship between parents and sons
and daughters.
I have a son and a daughter, kind of about your age. I
would do anything for them. And I think you're saying the same
about your parents. But here is the problem. When you have,
when you are pitting sons and daughters against moms and dads,
you've created really a system that is not healthy. And if I'm
hearing you right, Ms. Rivera, it's not that your mother
wouldn't do anything for you, it's that you would not permit
that. You would not permit your mother to be thrown to the side
of the road for your benefit.
Is that kind of a good summary of your position?
Ms. Rivera. Yes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Dr. Duke, we've worked together in the past and I
appreciate very much your testimony. And it's interesting you
know there are many issues that you and I don't agree on but
what we have learned is that we can work to things that we do
agree on and one of those things has been immigration. The
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission is part of the
Evangelical Immigration Table, and the statement released in
March calling for immigration reform said that it should, and I
quote, provide clear steps to citizenship for those who want,
want it and qualify. Dr. Russell Moore, the President of the
Commission, sent a letter to Congress last month saying that,
and I again quote, ``A tough yet achievable earned pathway to
citizenship is a necessary part of broader reform.''
Is that still your position and the position of the Ethics
and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist
Convention?
Mr. Duke. Congresswoman Lofgren, thanks for the question.
Yes, it is still our position. It is my position that we should
not be creating second-class citizens in this country. We just
don't do that here. Everyone should have a full opportunity to
rise to the, a full opportunity that this country affords them
and citizenship is certainly a part of being able to do that.
So we believe, and I certainly believe, that we do need to
create an opportunity for citizenship for those who can qualify
by whatever standards this Committee and Congress would choose.
But we do believe that that should be a component that is
possible for these folks.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. And I hope that the
faithful here in the House will listen to your words of advice.
Now when the House last took up the DREAM Act some Members
took to the floor and they called it the Nightmare Act. They
said that allowing these young people to come out of the
shadows and have an opportunity to earn legal permanent
residence, and possibly also in the future citizenship, would
prevent Americans from getting jobs and realizing other
opportunities.
How would you answer that attack, Dr. Duke?
Mr. Duke. Well, certainly, we are in a situation in our
country right now where we don't have enough jobs it would
seem, but we also have a lot of jobs that are simply going
unfilled, and so, clearly, we need more workers in certain
areas than we have right now. We know that business is looking
for more workers currently. So clearly there is still a need
for more workers in this country. The best thing that we can do
is create as well qualified and educated a workforce as we
possibly can. We have all of these young folks here right now,
what, over 1 million, who can be brought fully into the
workforce and can meet a lot of those needs that we already
have and as we continue to grow our economy we are going to
need more workers and eventually everybody who wants a job, a
full-time job is going to be able to find one. So I think this
country needs more workers not less workers.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. I'll just close by saying
you know whenever we have a hearing like this I'm so struck by
the courage shown by undocumented individuals. I think of them
as aspiring Americans. And I remember my grandfather who came
to this country when he was 16 years old with nothing. His
process then was he got on a boat, it sailed to America and he
got off the boat. He never saw his parents again. But he wanted
to be an American just like you want to be an American. And he
and generations of aspiring Americans came and really built
this country.
And to think that our future will not be enriched by people
who want to, who have enough hope and enough courage and enough
ambition to want to be a free American, to help build our
country, that that future would not be enriched is just a
mistake because through aspiring Americans, people who want to
come and throw in their lot with us and build a better country,
our future will be strengthened. And I don't think we need to
ration that. I think we ought to embrace that. Just as
immigrants built our past they will help us build a great
future for Americans.
So thank you all for your wonderful testimony today.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentlelady from California. The
Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being
recognized, and listening to the testimony of the witnesses
here, gathering my thoughts and trying to digest what's been
taking place here today, and I think the first question I would
ask is, Ms. Velazquez, and your testimony here I could hear the
emotion in your voice and would you characterize the life you
have had here in the United States as, you individually, living
in the shadows?
Ms. Velazquez. I'm sorry?
Mr. King. Would you characterize your life living here in
the United States as living in the shadows?
Ms. Velazquez. Living in the shadows wasn't an option for
me. There were--I was a voice to some members of my community.
Some of the kids that were going to college there, that were
wanting to go to college came up to me and I had to voice
myself to them and let them know that----
Mr. King. So you wouldn't characterize your life as living
in the shadows here?
Ms. Velazquez. No, sir.
Mr. King. Thank you. I appreciate knowing that.
I turn to Dr. Duke. And listening to your testimony and you
cited Ezekiel 18:20 in that I would call it the sins of the
father section. But I understand that point that the sins of
the son shall not be punished by the father--onto the father
and vice versa. But I look at that and I also I read through
the rest of your testimony and the balance of what you said,
and it appears to me that neither would you punish the parents
for bringing their children here, you just wouldn't do so in
this bill.
Did I read that correctly?
Mr. Duke. Thank you for the question, Congressman. No, I'm
not saying we shouldn't hold the parents accountable for the
choices that they made. There do need to be appropriate forms
of restitution and penalty if these----
Mr. King. But you wouldn't apply current law to them, you
would exempt them from current law and want to write a new law
that would be less onerous than the penalties in current law
for the parents?
Mr. Duke. Yes, sir, I think what we are saying is we are,
or at least what I'm asking you is to create another set of
penalties for the law other than the penalty that currently
exists.
Mr. King. Would this be under the concept of mercy?
Mr. Duke. Well, mercy at the very least, but also in my
opinion simply a matter of practicality and humanity.
Mr. King. Mercy at the very least. Can you cite--and you
are, no question, a Biblical scholar. Can you cite any place in
the Bible where mercy is not accompanied by repentance?
Mr. Duke. Well, Congressman, I simply know that God says, I
will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. So He gets the
freedom to choose whether or not----
Mr. King. We're pretty sure he calls for repentance,
though, aren't we, as Christians?
Mr. Duke. He gets to choose under which circumstances He
wants to have mercy, and we get to choose the circumstance
under which we choose to have mercy.
Mr. King. Let me suggest that we couldn't teach
Christianity without repentance being a component of it,
however. And I just, I wanted to make that point but also, I
know that the Southern Baptist Conference has cited Matthew
25:35 for I was a stranger and you let me in.
Mr. Duke. Yes, sir.
Mr. King. And that is a central theme, also, which I'm a
little surprised isn't in this testimony, but I would expect
that you would adhere to that proposal as well, that
theological philosophy?
Mr. Duke. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Mr. King. So are you aware, when we see that word
``stranger,'' and when you look back through the Greek which is
the foundation of the interpretation that most of the modern
day Bible that I know, the word stranger is the Greek word
xenos, x-e-n-o-s. And are you aware that that really means
within that context in Greek guest foreigner, an invited guest,
rather than someone who came in against the law?
Mr. Duke. Yes, sir. I understand that there are various
understandings of how that word is to be interpreted in that
passage.
Mr. King. So you wouldn't interpret Mathew 25:35 to mean
you are commanded by God to welcome anyone that comes into your
country or home regardless of whether they were invited or
whether they were uninvited?
Mr. Duke. I don't think--yes, sir. I think that is correct.
We are not required to invite anyone who simply comes along
into our homes. But we are required to express hospitality
toward those, as many of those as we can.
Mr. King. Towards invited guests, according to the Greek
interpretation I would suggest.
Mr. Duke. Pardon?
Mr. King. Hospitality toward those invited guests,
according to the Greek interpretation of the word xenos,
stranger, invited guest.
Let me move on. Also St. Paul gave a sermon on Mars Hill,
it's in Acts 17. And in that he said, and God made every Nation
on Earth, and He decided when and where each Nation would be,
and He granted that authority to the elected officials within
the countries to set the border and to control the border. And
that is the definition of sovereignty as I understand that.
Would you have a different understanding of St. Paul's
sermon on Mars Hill?
Mr. Duke. No, sir. I think that God does give human beings
the freedom to create their own borders and to establish their
own laws.
Mr. King. Thank you very much. I appreciate all the
witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from
Michigan, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr.
Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to all of
our witnesses.
I'm very impressed by the overall direction that all of the
witnesses have made, their understanding of how we deal with
not only the DREAMers but with their parents as well. One thing
that concerns me is that sometimes we manage to keep the
DREAMers in and there seems to be a growing tendency in that
direction in the Congress. But the separation of the children,
the DREAMers, from their parents, is something that still
troubles me. And I'd like to just go down the witness list and
see if you share any of this unease with me.
And I always like to start with the Vice President of the
Southern Baptist Convention. One of these days we're going to
get a witness from the Northern Baptist Convention here, but it
hasn't happened yet.
Mr. Duke. There aren't as many of them.
Mr. Conyers. That's a good reason.
Mr. Duke. I thank the Congressman. I do share concerns for
the parents of these young men and women. They're in a
different circumstance, however, because they purposefully have
violated the law. So it's difficult for me to see how we can
address the circumstance for these particular young people and
then also address the parents' needs without talking about a
full immigration solution.
Mr. Conyers. Comprehensive.
Mr. Duke. Yes, sir, a complete immigration solution that
would address not only their parents but the parents of
children who were born here as well who also need their
circumstances to be addressed.
Mr. Conyers. And might I ask you for your feelings on this
part of the discussion?
Ms. McHugh. I would just say that our organization is
focused on analysis of policy options facing the Congress, and
so it's not the sort of way that we would approach the,
approach an issue.
Mr. Conyers. That means that you wouldn't think of it as
comprehensive or that we could create a path for citizenship
even for the parents although they have without doubt violated
some of our immigration rules but we always start off here by
saying, on both sides of the aisle, that the immigration system
is broken. So it's not a matter of worrying too much about
these rules, it is can we construct some others? And do you
have an idea on that?
Ms. McHugh. Perhaps I was listening to your question with
too formal an ear. I thought you said did I have a feeling of
concern about that. I would say for my organization overall
that a great deal of our policy analysis over the years has
focused on the need for more comprehensive approaches to reform
if we are to fix the system. But I would just say that there's
a distinction between that and the question that you had asked.
Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. Oh, thank you.
Ms. Rivera, what say you?
Ms. Rivera. Obviously, I am supportive of comprehensive
immigration reform, anything that helps families stay together.
I think that that is the epitome of at least what my family,
what I was raised on. I think it's for the well-being of
children, and I just think it's for the well-being of America
because you know the family unit is probably the most important
unit we have in society.
Mr. Conyers. So what about the parents? Do you think that
we keep the DREAMers and work out a way for them a path for
citizenship? But what bothers me is what do we do with the
parents? Do we kick them out? Do we separate? Do we separate
them from their children who were born here in the country?
Ms. Rivera. No. I don't think that that is, I don't think
that that is a real option. I think that that can cause lasting
damage. I can tell you, I recently got married, I got married
last month and had to go through the decision of trying to
figure out how to do a wedding because I have my sister who
cannot leave the country, and I have my mother who cannot come
into the country. So I was engaged for 2 years hoping that some
type of solution would occur and that at the very least my
sister would be able to travel to Colombia. So finally we just
had to give in and we had to get married. And it was wonderful
but my mom was there via face time.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, could I get a response from Ms. Velazquez,
even though my time is expired?
Mr. Gowdy. Certainly, Mr. Conyers. Ms. Velazquez, you may
answer Mr. Conyers' question.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. At home I was taught that what
this country was found on family values, Christian values,
courage, equality and justice. I hope that this hearing is the
first to addressing not only a resolution for me but for my
parents as well.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. The Chair
will now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank all the others. It's very good testimony,
compelling emotional testimony we appreciate that. Let me go
right to where Mr. Conyers was.
Ms. Velazquez and Ms. Rivera just for the record so we're
all clear, you obviously support a path for citizenship for
DREAMers and you would support a path for citizenship for
parents as well? Ms. Velazquez?
Ms. Velazquez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Ms. Rivera?
Ms. Rivera. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. How about you, Ms. McHugh?
Ms. McHugh. I'm sorry, a path----
Mr. Jordan. A path to citizenship for DREAMers is what
we're talking about today. Would you also support a path to
citizenship for parents?
Ms. McHugh. My organization isn't an advocacy organization
and so we don't take positions.
Mr. Jordan. I'm asking you as a witness in today's hearing
what do you think?
Can you speak on your behalf of yourself or you can only
talk about your association?
Okay. How about Dr. Duke?
Mr. Duke. Congressman, thanks for the question. Yes I
believe there should be a way forward for citizenship for these
others as well.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. Let me go back to Ms. Velazquez. What
about the rest of the estimated 11 million illegals here? Do
you support a path to citizenship for those individuals? Ms.
Velazquez?
Ms. Velazquez. Yes, sir. I support a path to citizenship
for the 11 million.
Mr. Jordan. Ms. Rivera?
Ms. Rivera. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. You guys do? The Southern Baptists have taken a
position on that?
Mr. Duke. Restate your question so I can answer it then,
please.
Mr. Jordan. We all know you are for the DREAMers. We all
know you're for parents except Ms. McHugh doesn't want to
respond to that. Ms. Velazquez and Ms. Rivera also are for the
rest of the estimated 11 million who are here illegally, a path
to citizenship. I just want to know where the Southern Baptists
are.
Mr. Duke. Yes, sir. In our resolution in 2011 we did call
for legal status for the undocumented immigrants here in our
presence in this country and in further reflection since then
most Southern Baptists are also asking for a way forward for
citizenship for these 11 million as well, and that certainly
would be my position.
Mr. Jordan. That's your position and it's the position of
the Southern Baptists?
Mr. Duke. The Southern Baptist Convention has not stated
officially that that is its position.
Mr. Jordan. Ms. Velazquez, do you support the comprehensive
bill passed by the United States Senate?
Ms. Velazquez. I support a pathway to citizenship for 11
million undocumented immigrants.
Mr. Jordan. Have you looked at the Senate bill?
Ms. Velazquez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. And you are for it or against it?
Ms. Velazquez. It has a path to citizenship, so I support a
path to citizenship.
Mr. Jordan. Ms. Rivera, can you comment on the Senate bill?
Are you for The Senate bill?
Ms. Rivera. Yes, I am.
Mr. Jordan. Ms. McHugh, have you taken a position on the
Senate bill?
Ms. McHugh. No, we have not.
Mr. Jordan. Dr. Duke, have Southern Baptists taken a
position on the Senate bill?
Mr. Duke. The Southern Baptist Convention has not taken a
position on the STEM bill. My organization, the Ethics and
Religious Liberty Commission----
Mr. Jordan. No, no. I'm talking about the Senate bill, as
passed by the Senate.
Mr. Duke. Oh, the Senate bill. No, sir, we have not. We
have simply said we believe it is a good step forward but it
needs some repair and needs some work and we are looking to the
House to help address some issues.
Mr. Jordan. Last question for you, last question, Mr.
Chairman and it's for you, Dr. Duke.
The Southern Baptist Convention, you said you believed
they're for a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million even
though you haven't taken a formal position. Is there anything
in what you perceive as the position of the Southern Baptists
that says border security must happen before there is a pathway
to citizenship for those, for the estimated 11 million folks in
the country illegally?
Mr. Duke. Yes, sir. I would say that most Southern
Baptists, and certainly myself, believe that we need to make
sure the border is secure before citizenship is possible. But
we do believe that we do also need to address the circumstances
of these 11 million and that it needs to be done as a package
in order to make sure that all of the needs of our Nation and
of these undocumented immigrants are addressed.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. Do you have any--I said last question but
I changed my mind here, Mr. Chairman. I've got one more for Dr.
Duke.
Do you have any concern--Mr. Gutierrez and the passion he
brings to this issue we all respect. But he talked about in his
statement that, you know, if, in fact, we pass a DREAM Act for
young people that well, we're going to have to make sure we do
it for parents because we can't have this--are you at all
concerned about where it goes and the logical steps that Mr.
Gutierrez has pointed out and all of you have pointed out, that
it travels that way before we have a chance to actually secure
the border and maintain the border as a sovereign Nation? Does
that concern you at all, Dr. Duke, and the Southern Baptist
Convention?
Mr. Duke. Congressman, it does concern me that we may not
get to the place where we secure the border. And I'm looking to
you to make sure that there is a mechanism in place that
assures us that the border is secured before permanent legal
status is applied, but that doesn't mean that you can't do
something intermediate in the meantime so that these folks here
can at least know that they no longer have to live under the
fear of deportation while our country is resolving this
problem.
Mr. Jordan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Duke. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Gutierrez.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all the witnesses. It was a very compelling and very
moving testimony. I'm delighted that you're here and I'm
delighted that we're having a hearing that I think really
broadens the perspective of this Committee. And I'd like to
take the opportunity to say that, to Ms. Velazquez, you love
your mom?
Ms. Velazquez. Yes, sir. I love my mother.
Mr. Gutierrez. After you described her, I love her too. And
I want her to be part of your life.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. I'll let her know that.
Mr. Gutierrez. And I know that, Ms. Rivera, you know, you
have two siblings, right?
Mr. Rivera. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. One of them out of status, the other one an
American citizen like you. How do you feel, how important is it
to you as an American citizen that you get your mom back? How
important is it?
Ms. Rivera. It would mean a lot. It's hard because there
are so many things that you just want to call your mom and tell
her about. There are so many little instances that people don't
have to think about and don't even realize or, you know, that
you take for granted. I've had to, I've had to experience that.
I know how difficult it is and I can't imagine how difficult it
must be for my mother always living in fear and never knowing
if something happens to her kids, knowing that she cannot be
there for them.
So you know I understand this issue is incredibly
complicated, and I'm very happy not to have to do this myself
but I believe that Congress has the ability to do it and I
would love to have my mother back.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you. As we look at it, and as I look
at it, I try to look at it through the prism. I have two
daughters. I can't imagine what their life would be like
without their mother. There are certain things that dads don't
do. There are certain parts of life that dads don't fill in. I
am kind of like the--I am the concierge. You know, need a
ticket. Okay. Call Dad, he'll get you a ticket. Need to learn
to drive a car, call Dad. Need somebody to take you to the
university to go check it out, call Dad. I do those kinds
things of things. Flat tire, call Dad. Right? Then there's all
the other stuff that moms do, that parents do. I am not trying
to diminish what we as men do and the relationship we have. But
moms are pretty important in people's lives. So we should
think. I don't think about them as much. I say to my
colleagues, I think simply about ourselves. And I think about
what our relationship is to our children and how important I
know every member of this panel is and has been and will
continue to be to their children. And to simply look at it from
your own prism in terms of your own children and what would
their lives be like without us, I don't think it would be the
same.
And I just want to say that, look, this isn't about the
Senate bill. We can draft one here in the House of
Representatives. We have the skills and we have the knowledge
and I know that we have the fortitude to get us through those
debates and those discussions. And so it is not about amnesty.
I mean, I look at the Senate bill and I say to myself, we
really want it. I mean, we are saying 10, 15, 20, 25 years. Ms.
Velazquez. Every cent that an undocumented person like your
mother has spent and sent to Social Security Trust Fund, gone.
Vanished. Confiscated in the Senate bill. Ten, 15, 20, 25
years. Work for the next 10 years. I came to Congress to have
comprehensive healthcare for everybody. Gone. Eleven, 10 years,
you want to get legalized, don't expect a cent of subsidy. And
pay every tax imaginable and fulfill every financial
responsibility. And don't expect one means tested program. Not
one.
And in 10 years, kind of forget about bringing your
brothers or your sisters, because those are costs. Those are
gone. And then if that wasn't enough, 20,000 more border patrol
agents. But you know what, it is worth it what you are doing.
What we are doing is worth it. It is worth it to sit down. And
I want to extend another hand to the other side of the aisle to
say all those things, I don't like them, but I am ready to
accept them. Because the alternative is the kind of pain that
you hear about from that young lady. And you have to multiply
what they said here millions of times. I just want you to think
of those millions of tears each and every day, the pain and the
devastation that exists in our community.
So thank you for the personal testimony. Thank you for
humanizing this issue for all of us, and because I think that
is going to help inform this Committee better than any
statistics can. Thank you so much.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Illinois.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr.
Labrador.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Rivera, I only disagreed vehemently with one thing that
you said in your testimony, and it's my mom is the best. So,
no. I just have a few questions for you. And I appreciate both
of you testifying today. But I want to talk about the realities
of immigration. The immigration system that we are currently
living under.
Are you familiar, Ms. Rivera, with the immigration system
back in Colombia, what it is like?
Ms. Rivera. I'm not. No.
Mr. Labrador. Do you know what would happen if I entered
the country illegally today in Colombia?
Ms. Rivera. No, sir.
Mr. Labrador. Okay. Do you know what would happen to my
kids who I would bring into Colombia illegally?
Ms. Rivera. No, sir.
Mr. Labrador. I suggest to you the treatment would be
vastly different than the treatment that you and your family
would receive here in the United States.
Now, since you came before us, and I don't like to ask
personal questions, but you've testified about some personal
issues. You said that your mom--you said you are a U.S.
citizen; correct?
Ms. Rivera. Yes, sir.
Mr. Labrador. And your mom can't come here to the United
States. How is that possible when you are a U.S. citizen? What
exactly is happening?
Ms. Rivera. My mom, when I was a sophomore in college, she
was pulled over for a minor traffic citation, was then
arrested. And I believe she was--she was then arrested. And
then at some point ICE got involved. She was taken to a
detention center. You know, unfortunately for us, at the time,
you know, I was not aware of all the different things----
Mr. Labrador. I just want to--I want to clarify something.
She was arrested. She was returned to Colombia. Is that
correct?
Ms. Rivera. She was taken to a detention center and then a
couple months later she was then----
Mr. Labrador. And you are over the age of 21.
Ms. Rivera. Not at the time.
Ms. Rivera. But today you are.
Ms. Rivera. Yes, I am.
Mr. Labrador. Why can't you apply for her?
Ms. Rivera. I have. Her visa was approved in the U.S. and
then when she went to the embassy in Bogota, she was denied.
Mr. Labrador. Do you know why she was denied?
Ms. Rivera. They said that she automatically, for leaving
the country, the 10-year ban was----
Mr. Labrador. So did you file a waiver for her?
Ms. Rivera. My father--so complicated.
Mr. Labrador. Just yes or no. I know this is difficult.
Ms. Rivera. He has since then.
Mr. Labrador. And they haven't approved that yet.
Ms. Rivera. No.
Mr. Labrador. But there is a way for your mom to come if
you file a waiver and all those things. And the only point I am
trying to make, I am not trying to embarrass you or put you on
the spotlight, is one of the things that we are talking about
doing here in the House of Representatives is actually removing
some of these waivers that are actually preventing people who
have been removed from the United States from coming back
legally. And that is something that if we could pass in some
legislation, you know, that would actually help you and your
family, and it is one of the things that I am trying to
accomplish.
Now, Ms. Velazquez, you--in your testimony, you said some
things that I found frankly a little bit hard to understand.
You said, ``If Congress were to adopt an incomplete solution
that would provide a path to earned citizenship for Dreamers
like me but something less for our parents, it would be like
saying that I can now be one of you but my parents can never
be.'' And then you also said, ``Do we really want to ignore the
values that history has taught us by giving our parents a seat
at the back of the bus type of legalization?"
That is actually highly inaccurate. And it is highly, I
think, a little bit dismissive of our current immigration
system. Are you familiar with the H-1B process at all?
Ms. Velazquez. I am not.
Mr. Labrador. Right now, if I came to the United States
legally, so not coming illegally, I came to the United States
as an H-1B worker, which is somebody who works in--as a guest
worker in the high tech industry or requires a college degree,
and I had children in the United States, they would become
citizens. But I would not be necessarily--I would--I don't have
a right to become a citizen of the United States. I could apply
for citizenship, but there is nothing that technically says I
would have to become a citizen. And there are millions of
people who come to the United States who have children and they
still have to leave even though they came here legally. Are you
aware of that?
Ms. Velazquez. I did not know that.
Mr. Labrador. So it wouldn't be treating your family any
different than we treat the millions and millions of people who
actually come legally to the United States and they don't have
a right to stay in the United States. Now, I want to find a way
to make--to help the 11 million. I don't have a problem with
that. But to come here to Congress and say that we are putting
your parents in the back of the bus when we are treating them--
we would treat them the same that we would treat anybody else
who came here legally who doesn't have a right to citizenship,
I think you need to really rethink your rhetoric. Because there
are people that are here legally that don't become citizens of
the United States, and they have children here, and they have
the same values, the same beliefs, the same everything that you
have, but the law does not allow them to become citizens. But
yet they can actually stay here as guest workers in many, many
industries.
I want to find a solution for this problem. I want us to
treat everybody fairly. But, like I said in my opening
statement, the most important thing for me is the rule of law,
making sure that we prevent having this problem again 10 years
from now, 20 years from now. Because, frankly, that is not fair
to either one of you. If we continue to have these problems for
the next little while, then there is going to be another Ms.
Rivera and another Ms. Velazquez who is going to be coming here
to Congress and telling us about the compelling story about
their families and how their families now need to have a new
legal status.
So I want to help you, I want to help your families, but,
most importantly I want to make sure we fix the problems that
we have so we don't have to have this conversation again. Thank
you very much for being here today.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank the gentleman from Idaho.
The Chair would now recognize gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the Chairman. And I join with
the idea that whenever we make steps toward improving lives and
act as legislators, we are really doing the right thing because
that is a challenge and the charge that we have been given in
this Congress, is to come to help fix America's problems.
I want to acknowledge my appreciation for all of the
witnesses. But I do want to thank in particular who I saw
earlier, Ms. Velazquez and Ms. Rivera. Because along with your
knowledge, there are personal stories that are being told.
And, Ms. Rivera, I can't thank you enough for discussing
something so personal. And I think if we can all appreciate
each other's humanity that what we are talking about is not the
nuts and bolts of moving checkers on a chess board, checkers
board or chess on a chess board, but we are really talking
about human lives. And I believe that we have held human lives
in the balance too long. This has been going on too long. The
key to this is not presupposing or predicting ill and disaster
and devastation, but to look at the Senate bill as a marker in
terms of attempting to frame, Dr. Duke, the relief this time so
we don't have the idea of someone being able to say this will
happen again.
Dr. Duke, I want to pose this question to you. We thank you
for representing the Southern Baptists. This morning, we were
with the evangelicals, who have made a commitment and have
embraced, I guess, people from different faiths. And they
believe it is time to move--really on the--the human aspect of
it. As you listened to Ms. Rivera, Ms. Velazquez, you know,
this is a comprehensive pathway to citizenship. There is a
crack in the armor when you suggest that you will take the
children. I know that some years back, the Ranking Member and
myself worked on--in various ways and then together--the idea
of what kind of facilities children are in, young people are
in, under the age of majority. Previously, in detention
centers, it wasn't a pretty scene. It wasn't a pretty scene
when you had to separate families. So the human question arose.
The idea of human trafficking, which I know the church has
worked on, is dastardly. I come from a city that has an
enormous problem in human trafficking, and it is not an
international city, it is Houston.
So my question to you is, do you see the value in taking
the comprehensive approach and regularizing family members,
agricultural workers, tech workers, other skilled workers that
really reins in what I think our friends have been speaking of
through this hearing?
Mr. Duke. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman Jackson
Lee. Yes, we believe that we do need to address the entire 11
million or so undocumented immigrants here, that the family
unification is an important aspect of immigration reform. The
question for us with the--with this particular question on
these particular children to us is a little different than
their parents simply because the children didn't break any
laws. And so I just don't see how you can address the parents
who did break laws of that particular group differently than
you address all the other parents of children who broke the
law. That needs to be addressed in a bigger package of bills
that we believe this--that you are working on and that we are
hopeful you will continue to work on. And that this particular
aspect of it, just these particular children just become one
part of the entire package that does ultimately assure us
family units.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So you can support comprehensive
immigration reform?
Mr. Duke. Yes, we support a full immigration reform.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me ask, get these questions out before
my time, Ms. Rivera, Ms. Velazquez, can you talk to me both
about the pain of separation from parents or the pain that
young people have? Why don't we start with you, Ms. Rivera, the
pain that you are experiencing--even though you are over 21?
Ms. Rivera. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Of not having your mother
here. I assume she is in Colombia?
Ms. Rivera. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You as a citizen have the right to visit.
But the pain of not being able to have your mother here in the
United States.
Ms. Rivera. It's very difficult. It's the little things
that add up. Birthdays, celebrations, graduations, weddings,
also to things that, you know, become harder and harder. It's
having to see my sister, who is unable to visit her, suffer and
see that the only way she can interact with my mom is through a
computer camera. So it's incredibly difficult. As I said in my
testimony, it affected me while I was in school. I had to reach
out to my college of liberal arts to my counselors and let them
know what was going on because I could not concentrate. I was a
college undergrad student trying to understand immigration law,
which is just about impossible. Filing paperwork. So it's
just--it's very difficult.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Velazquez.
Ms. Velazquez. I can only imagine what it would be not to
have my parents with me. My younger brothers, yeah, it would be
devastating. And the pain in the community exists. We have
several families in the State of Arkansas that are now battling
that. And I can only imagine what Hido's parents would feel
like to leave their 5 U.S. citizen children and then having to
go back to a place that, you know, they haven't been to in a
long time. We also have another case in Fort Smith where the
Hernandez family have two U.S. citizen children, one is 3 years
old. And their parent is in a detention center, waiting to be
deported. And every time I see Leticia, I can see the pain in
her eyes that she has whenever she talks to me about her dad
and how much she misses him and playing with him. So just the
thought of not being there, and even at my age, not being there
with him is terrifying to me.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Ms. Velazquez. I thank the
gentlewoman from Texas----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the Chairman very much. And,
Mr. Chairman, I am yielding back, just saying that Congress'
duty is to fix these kinds of problems, even if they are pretty
tough. I thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady
from California for unanimous consent. And then the gentleman
from Nevada, who has waited patiently, my good friend Mark
Amodei.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous
consent that we make a part of the record statements from the
Congressional Asia-Pacific Island American Caucus, the National
Immigration Forum, the First Focus Campaign for Children, the
American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigrant Justice
Center, the Asian Americans Advancing Justice, CHIRLA, the
Anti-defamation League, National Education Association, YWCA,
and the Church World Service, as well as a statement on
citizenship from the Evangelical Immigration Table, and a poll
from last week from the Gallup Organization on immigration as
seen by Americans.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Amoodei.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to associate
myself with the remarks of my colleague from Texas, although I
wish Mr. Gutierrez was still here. I wanted to talk with him on
the record about teaching people to drive. Since he is not, we
will skip that part.
You know, during the course of this hearing you have heard
things about, ``I don't want my parents left behind.'' ``So
this doesn't happen again.'' The package, comprehensive, you
know, in this town, define ``comprehensive.'' And everybody has
concentrated on what the problem is now, and rightfully so. But
we don't have that luxury of just concentrating on that. Your
circumstances have been well represented, and I will tell you
what, quite frankly, I personally believe the hardest thing for
anybody to do is go back to the people that they represent,
whatever the district is, and say we did nothing. Does anybody
on the panel think that what is going on now is okay and
nothing, status quo is okay?
Record should reflect nobody answered in the affirmative.
Correct? Okay.
So now let me ask you this: I want to ask you to branch out
beyond your personal circumstances, wanting your parents
together, all that other sort of stuff, which is understandable
in human nature. What was--and I will start with you, Ms.
Velazquez, do you have any knowledge of what the thought
process was when your mom, if I recall correctly, I missed part
of it, said, you know what, I'm going there. And I'm staying
and I'm taking my 2-year-old, the age doesn't really matter.
And I am asking the question in the context of, because one of
the toughest things to justify, because, okay, in 1986 they
dealt with it. Here we are in 2013, we are going to deal with
it, hopefully, we should. But now as some of the indication has
been, so now we are 10 years down the road, 15 year down the
road. How do you make sure that nobody comes here 15 or 20
years from now and has to sit where you are and tell the
stories about that? What is the piece--and with all due
respect, the border isn't Texas to California. You know, there
is a gulf and there are a few coasts, and there is that thing
up there north of Montana called Canada. What is your thought
on how do you make sure this doesn't happen again? Once we deal
with this group, any suggestions?
Ms. Velazquez. Well, I think that's your responsibility,
Congressman. I think you--you all hold the answer to what we're
going through.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. And I appreciate that. But when you come
and say, I want a comprehensive thing, I want you to deal with
it, you can't say, but I got nothing to give you on the other
part. Here's what I want you to do for me. I mean, you can, but
then you risk whatever we come up with, which I think would
scare the heck out of you.
Ms. Rivera?
Ms. Rivera. Thank you, Congressman. To answer the first
part of that question, you know, Colombia in the '80's and the
early '90's was a very scary place to be. You know, my parents
did what I think any parent would do, what I know I would do
for my children, is they tried to give us, you know, every
opportunity. And they wanted to get us out of there because it
was just so dangerous.
So to now address the second part of your question, it's
very difficult to say, you know, how you--you fix this problem.
But, you know, I know that you guys are incredibly talented and
I know that you may think that that is a copout, but I really
think that, you know, sitting down and talking this out you can
figure it out.
Mr. Amodei. And thank you for acknowledging that and the
fact that the folks on the south side of the building should
have a shot at that and hearings like this and other things, as
well as the folks from the north side of the building.
Ms. McHugh, any thoughts? What have other countries done?
What do you do so that you just don't keep turning the wheel
and having new groups that are disenfranchised because our
current system obviously isn't working?
Ms. McHugh. I'm not involved in a lot of these different
areas of work in my organization. But you may be aware that we
have published extensive analyses of both interior and border
enforcement systems. We have done comparative work looking at
how other countries are handling these issues. Also we've done
a great deal of analysis of selections----
Mr. Amodei. Briefly--I got a yellow light. Briefly, can you
summarize?
Ms. McHugh. Yes. We know there are no easy answers to this.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you for that. It's unanimous so far.
Mr. Duke. Congressman, thanks for your question. It is the
great question, how do we not ever come back here again. There
will probably always be some people here illegally. We're not
going to ever get hundred percent security at that point. But
certainly the workplace is a large draw. And if you can put in
some kind of e-verify for most employment circumstances, that
certainly is going to deal with a lot of it. We need a way to
track visas as well so the folks aren't overstaying their
visas. To me it's offensive that the folks who gave their word
that they would only be here a certain amount of time have
chosen to back out on their word and overstayed their visas. To
me, that's a concern as well. So you should address that as
well. And then, of course, border security would help as well.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank the gentleman from Nevada.
The Chair would now recognize himself for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Dr. Duke, I made a D in Old Testament, so I never thought
about trying to take New Testament. But several of my
colleagues have made reference to the Bible, and I'm almost
positive that a couple named Joseph and Mary emigrated,
according to one of the gospels, to Egypt when Herod was
looking for their son. I guess in the Gospel of Matthew. But I
want to ask you this, because this is what kind of vexes me
from an equity or a fairness standpoint. I want you to
imagine--I never understood why God preferred Esau over Jacob.
And I never really understood why they killed the fatted calf
for the prodigal son when the other son had done it exactly
right, exactly the way he was supposed to do it. He didn't go
and squander his fortune, he did what his father asked him to
do. So imagine a couple in Colombia with a daughter every bit
as bright and engaging and beautiful as Ms. Rivera. And they
did it the way we asked them to do it. What are the equities of
jumping anyone ahead of them in line?
Mr. Duke. Congressman, thanks for the question. It is a
tough question. And your questions about exactly how to
understand those particular situations in the Bible are still
being debated and will be until the Lord returns, I'm sure. So
you're not alone in trying to sort through some of those
things.
I think that the reality is we have a situation that no--
nobody wants but it's a real situation that we're dealing with.
And we have 11 million people here. We cannot continue to allow
them to live in the circumstances they are living in. It's not
right for them, it's not in our country's best interest. So we
need to address that. If we're going to secure the borders and
we're going to trap 11 million people here, we better figure
out some kind of way to stop us from simply consigning them to
lives of poverty or bare subsistence, and their children and
their children and their children after them. So it's more a
practical question I think at that point, what you do folks in
line trying to get her when you already have 11 million here.
You could say that you already have 11 million here you have to
address and those other folks, you know, at least they are
making a living wherever they are. At least they have some
degree of support wherever they are rather than us trying to
drive these other folks out of here.
So we have to address this situation. We can't simply
ignore it and act as though it doesn't exist. But when we do
talk about getting on a path to our legal status, permanent
legal status and so on, or citizenship, they should get behind
the line. They should get at the end of the line for everybody
who already has their paperwork in. For whenever their
paperwork goes in, it should go in and be active after all of
these other folks who have already applied in that process. So
some folks will be a long time in that process unless you want
to speed up how quickly we can process people for citizenship.
Mr. Gowdy. Ms. Velazquez, I think all of the witnesses have
made a reference to 11 million. I hear it everywhere I go as if
it's a homogenous group, and we know it's not. And you made
reference several times to the 11 million. Would you agree with
me that those members of the 11 million who can't pass a
background check shouldn't be on a path to anything other than
deportation?
Ms. Velazquez. Maybe the people that don't pass a
background check, but I do believe that there should be a
pathway for the majority of the 11 million.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, now, that is very different from what you
said earlier, and that is kind of my point. My point is all 11
million can't pass any background check. All 11 million of any
category of people, from preachers to Members of Congress,
can't pass a background check. So why persist with the talking
point of 11 million when we know that that's disingenuous? All
11 million don't want to be citizens. All 11 million can't pass
a background check. And even if you concede that then we get to
the details of what the background check is going to look like.
For instance, if you were sitting where Mr. Amodei is sitting,
if you have a conviction for domestic violence, should you be
on a path to citizenship or a path to deportation?
Ms. Velazquez. Well, I can only argue for my sake and my
parents' sake----
Mr. Gowdy. No, no, no, no, no. With all due respect, you
advocated on behalf of 11 million aspiring Americans. You are
not a difficult fact pattern. Ms. Rivera is not a difficult
fact pattern. So the talking point of 11 million aspiring
Americans, I am not interested in--in that. I am down in the
details of what does a background check look like? Do you think
a conviction for domestic violence should disqualify someone
from being on a path to citizenship or status?
Ms. Velazquez. I think I'm going back again to that's up to
you all to decide. And----
Mr. Gowdy. Well, if it's up to us, then why do I constantly
hear 11 million if it's one monolithic, homogeneous group? Why?
I mean, why not just say what you said, which is there are
subgroups that warrant different levels of scrutiny. For
instance, children who were brought here with no criminal
intent. That warrants one level of scrutiny. The parents who
brought them here who can fashion criminal intent warrants
another level of scrutiny. Those who have misdemeanor
convictions have one level of scrutiny. Those who have multiple
misdemeanor convictions have a different level of scrutiny.
Those who have felony convictions have a different level of
scrutiny. Why is that not the more honest response than to talk
about 11 million aspiring Americans?
Ms. Velazquez. Well, honestly, I'm in no position to tell
you who deserves what. And I don't know what you would do. How
would you decide that 1 percent deserves something that the
other doesn't.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, it's not hard for me. I spent 16 years
prosecuting people for domestic violence. That's a disqualifier
to me, even though most States consider it a misdemeanor. So
with all due respect, the devil is in the details.
Ms. Velazquez. Right.
Mr. Gowdy. The bright line--you know, people don't have any
trouble with that. The devil is in the details. I'm out of
time. I'll just say this on behalf--all four of you were very
good, persuasive witnesses, even if I don't agree necessarily
with everything that's said. I think you are here in good
faith. You contributed to the debate. When I see quotes like I
did today from someone named Dan Pfeiffer, who apparently works
for the President. I think it is the same Dan Pfeiffer that
once said the law is irrelevant. And he tweeted out today that
our plan is to allow some kids to stay, but deport their
parents. He summarized this entire debate with that tweet.
So I want to compliment you and thank you for not being a
demagogic, self serving political hack, who can't even be
elected to a parent advisory committee, much less Congress,
which is what Mr. Pfeiffer is. I want to thank you for not
being that and understanding these are complex issues where
reasonable minds can perhaps differ.
And with that, on behalf of all of us, I thank you for
contributing to this issue.
Does the Ranking Member wish to say something in
conclusion?
Ms. Lofgren. No. I would just say that I do thank, once
again, the witnesses for their testimony, and I think that it
has advanced the cause of justice forward. And you are right,
these are complicated questions. But I think you are also right
they are not so complicated that we can't figure them out. And
so I would just like to pledge once again my interest in
working with the Chairman to reform the laws. They are a mess
from top to bottom. And hopefully we can fix them from top to
bottom.
And I yield back and thank you for the offer.
Mr. Gowdy. I will thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I might have a parliamentary inquiry. We
have had this hearing, we appreciate it. Do you know whether
there will be a series of hearings? Will we now move to full
Committee? Or what do we--can we perceive to be the next steps?
Mr. Gowdy. I appreciate the gentlelady's question, and I
can't think of anyone less qualified than the lowest Member on
the Republican side answering it. But I am happy to check with
Chairman Goodlatte and get you an answer.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. We will both do
so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. I will thank all our witnesses. And with your
indulgence, I would like to come down there and thank you in
person. With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]